Notices
Results 1 to 100 of 100
Like Tree27Likes
  • 1 Post By Futilitist
  • 4 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By Boing3000
  • 1 Post By arKane
  • 1 Post By monsta666
  • 1 Post By scoobydoo1
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 1 Post By Futilitist
  • 5 Post By skeptic
  • 1 Post By Boing3000
  • 1 Post By Boing3000
  • 1 Post By scheherazade
  • 1 Post By Boing3000
  • 1 Post By scheherazade
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By skeptic
  • 2 Post By scheherazade
  • 1 Post By Futilitist
  • 1 Post By John Galt

Thread: PSYCHOLOGY of APOCALYPSE

  1. #1 PSYCHOLOGY of APOCALYPSE 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    This thread is for people to talk about the psychological aspects of the upcoming collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization.

    For some background info, please check out:

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/envir...ypse-soon.html


    ---Futilitist


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    as long as people have been speculating, some seem drawn to the concept of apocalypse, the end, armageddon, the ragnorock, etc ad infinitum ad nauseum.

    so far, they've been wrong

    (knock on wood)


     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    as long as people have been speculating, some seem drawn to the concept of apocalypse, the end, armageddon, the ragnorock, etc ad infinitum ad nauseum.

    so far, they've been wrong

    (knock on wood)
    The Easter Islanders ran out of wood to knock on.

    ---Futilitist
    arKane likes this.
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    This thread is for people to talk about the psychological aspects of the upcoming collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization.
    This is an excellent example of what I consider to be wrong (bad) about your posts. It is not certain that we are facing "the upcoming collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization". As far as I am aware many knowledgeable individuals from a variety of backgrounds who have considered the possibility do not even consider it probable.

    Therefore you are expressing an opinion as if it were a fact. This is not only illogical, but it is intellectually dishonest. Since your post opens with a clear statement of illogical dishonesty why should we give what you have to say any more attention?

    You could have avoided this very simply by opening in this way:

    I believe, based upon considerable evidence and some serious thinking about that evidence, that we are facing the collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization. Assume for the moment that my assessment is accurate and that we do face such collapse. This thread is for people to talk about the psychological aspects such a collapse would create.

    That would have been honest and logical and would have led to an interesting discussion.
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    This thread is for people to talk about the psychological aspects of the upcoming collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization.
    This is an excellent example of what I consider to be wrong (bad) about your posts. It is not certain that we are facing "the upcoming collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization". As far as I am aware many knowledgeable individuals from a variety of backgrounds who have considered the possibility do not even consider it probable.

    Therefore you are expressing an opinion as if it were a fact. This is not only illogical, but it is intellectually dishonest. Since your post opens with a clear statement of illogical dishonesty why should we give what you have to say any more attention?

    You could have avoided this very simply by opening in this way:

    I believe, based upon considerable evidence and some serious thinking about that evidence, that we are facing the collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization. Assume for the moment that my assessment is accurate and that we do face such collapse. This thread is for people to talk about the psychological aspects such a collapse would create.

    That would have been honest and logical and would have led to an interesting discussion.
    Hey there John,

    Thanks for dropping in.

    Your objections here are kind of silly. I started a thread called Apocalypse soon? to discuss whether or not we are headed for a near term social collapse. It is 5 pages long. I gave a link to that discussion in my introduction. That is the place to talk about the "facts". This thread is exclusively to talk about the psychological elements, like, say, denial. Thank you for the example.

    Since your post opens with a clear statement of illogical dishonesty why should we give what you have to say any more attention?
    Who do you mean by we? Are you more than one person? Are you royalty? So, are you using your moderator position to follow me around and suggest that others ignore me? Why am I deserving of such special treatment? I just started this thread and you are already wrongheadedly criticizing the first line of my introduction! I am obviously a strong advocate for the position that we are very close to experiencing a full scale social collapse. I'll bet a lot of people have figured that out for themselves by now. I don't feel the need to soft pedal my position to mollify knee jerk deniers like yourself. And people don't need you to protect them from scary ideas, John.

    You could have avoided this very simply by opening in this way:

    I believe, based upon considerable evidence and some serious thinking about that evidence, that we are facing the collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization. Assume for the moment that my assessment is accurate and that we do face such collapse. This thread is for people to talk about the psychological aspects such a collapse would create.
    I didn't need to do that since I figured you would come and correct me anyway. Thanks again.

    If you really want to lay into me for whatever reason, I've created a special thread just for that very purpose. You should check it out. You were the one who inspired me to create it. I'd be honored if you left a snotty comment there. Here is the link:

    What The Hell Is Wrong With That Futilitist Guy?

    I think this might be a big bandwidth saver.

    And by the way, you still have not answered my simple query about my scientific theory for the evolution of religion. KALSTER still holds the record for longest non answered question at 41 days and counting. Since none of your recent answers addressed the actual question I asked you, you are currently running a close second at 34 days. Your question is a little harder I think, but KALSTER is more stubborn than you. Of course he could still crack under the pressure and simply post a "YES". In that case, you would only have to hold your tongue for 7 days to take the all time title. I think it could still go either way. Hang in there John.


    ---Futilitist
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    That would have been honest and logical and would have led to an interesting discussion.
    Hello John,

    This part I agree with. That is also what I am looking for, on a site with 'science' and 'forum' in its url, especialy the underlined words.

    I cannot see any application of those words into your first reply. Is it dishonest ? maybe not. Maybe I am missing some clues and background. Maybe logic is not my strongest point. After all, I am proved wrong but computers 20 times a day. My logic may be the one of a biological entities that, on evolution scales, is lets say, not suitable to logic.

    Nonetheless, informed by that, and the opinions of my knowledgeable friends, none of them working for the oil industry, but all of them with various degree (like strong degree in patience), I have a hard time understanding the logic of your reply.

    Is it honest to lie ? You allow yourself to rewrite Futilitist statement, except that his version does not contains 'facts' but a link to a very factual thread , well worth reading. Did he believe his 'assessment is correct/it is facts', I hope so. Did you believe he is incorrect ? I have still no clue, because every time you are confronted with numbers and observations, you wriggle out of the argument by attacking the style, running out of argument about the content.

    You are asking something from people, without even being able to offer those things in advance. One logic prerequisite would be, if you want some credits, you should give other some. This thread is not about 'the end of the electromagnetic civilization', this thread is about the psychology of the people facing it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    And people don't need you to protect them from scary ideas, John
    That is where I disagree. Most people could not handle threats, and I tend to believe that is is a survival trait, like not to be too logical. Those people are easy to spot, they are very threatening, and are very illogical.
    Most people would not be able to sleep and simply proceed with their live, if they believe that 50 years from now, their world will be completely upside down.

    So denial exists. I seem to have notice a much stronger denial attitude in people with child, and people with 'position'. The age is also a important factor.

    The biggest denial I fight within me, is the believe that somewhat, a cool/funny and utterly unrespectful attitude toward such problems could bring down the SEP (SomeElseProblem) field of the generic people. Another is that somewhat that logic and honesty, and reciprocity, are valuable things for a scientific discussion.
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Your objections here are kind of silly. I started a thread called Apocalypse soon? to discuss whether or not we are headed for a near term social collapse. It is 5 pages long. I gave a link to that discussion in my introduction. That is the place to talk about the "facts". This thread is exclusively to talk about the psychological elements, like, say, denial. Thank you for the example.
    None of this alters the fact that you opened with a statement asserting as fact what is only an opinion. That is illogical and dishonest. Is does not matter how passionately you feel about that conclusion, or sure you are of its certainty, it remains at this stage nothing more than opinion. As such you should not express it as a fact.

    The length of your argument is irrelevant. Linking to a discussion of your opinion is irrelevant. What is relevant is that you asserted as a fact what is at this stage only an opinion. It may be a well informed opinion. It may be a valid opinion, but at this stage that is all it is. To present an opinion as a fact, which you did in your OP, is dishonest.

    Until we have addressed this dishonesty it is difficult, if not impossible to turn to the meat of the potential discussion.

    Now let's move on to your ridiculous assertion that my resistance here is denial of the possibility of "near term social collapse". Now, since I have a strong suspicion that we could be "facing the upcoming collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization" what exactly would I be denying. I base this suspicion specifically on aspects of network theory that hint at instability when linkages within networks are of a specific type and density. It is my opinion that there is definite risk that this collapse could happen. But it has not been established that this will happen. If I were to assert it was a fact, that it would happen, then I would be guilty of an illogical and dishonest statement.

    You are asking me to set a lower standard of posting for you than I set for myself. You are asking me to say it is OK to post illogical and dishonest statements. You are telling me that I should ignore illogical and dishonest statements to focus on what you talk about. You are asking me to honour and respect the wishes of member who posts illogical and dishonest statements simply because they refuse to admit that the statements are dishonest and illogical,

    So you pile what is either delusion or further dishonesty on top of your original offence. (And yes, it is an offence, against right thinking.)
    "
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Who do you mean by we? Are you more than one person? Are you royalty?
    It is apparent to me that several members agree with my concerns about your posts. This is based upon comments they have made in various threads and upon the application of Likes to some of my posts where I have critiqued your approach. I speak as an individual, but there seem to some other like minded individuals.

    Please note that does not make me correct - that simply justifies the use of the word 'we'. If it bothers you I have no problem reverting to 'I'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    So, are you using your moderator position to follow me around and suggest that others ignore me?
    In what way am I using my moderator position? I am posting as an individual member. I think I might have moderated one of your posts. I'm not sure. When I moderate I open with a phrase like Moderator Note in bold letters, and the the reelvant section in green font.

    I have not, I think, suggested others ignore you. I have begged, pleaded, cajoled and argued, that you should stop posting nonsense and that you should stop posting dishonestly. It is up to others to decide whether or not they wish to ignore dishonest posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Why am I deserving of such special treatment?
    You are not receiving special treatment. For seven years, on ten forums and under five or so names I have been pointing out errors of fact, errors of logic and intellectual dishonesty. You are receiving no more or less attention than any other poster who has come to my attention. Indeed, it is not so much you who has come to my attention as the errors and dishonesty in your posts.

    I just started this thread and you are already wrongheadedly criticizing the first line of my introduction!
    You are posting a blatant lie. What is wrongheaded about pointing this out. Are you unable to distinguish between a strongly held opinion and demonstrated fact? For the umpteenth time: you presented an opinion as a fact. When you do so knowlingly this is a lie. Do you think lying is acceptable behaviour on a science forum?

    I am obviously a strong advocate for the position that we are very close to experiencing a full scale social collapse. I'll bet a lot of people have figured that out for themselves by now. I don't feel the need to soft pedal my position to mollify knee jerk deniers like yourself.
    Not soft pedalling your position would be saying "My own view is that this collapse inevitable." Stating that view, that opinion, as a fact is dishonest. What don't you understand about this concept?

    And I trust you now understand that I am not denying the possibility of a collapse. I am attacking the dishonesty of claiming that a possibility is a certainty.
     

  9. #8  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    This thread is for people to talk about the psychological aspects of the upcoming collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization.
    Coming soon, a thread to talk about the psychological aspects of the upcoming discovery of unicorns on Mars.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    This thread is for people to talk about the psychological aspects of the upcoming collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization.
    Coming soon, a thread to talk about the psychological aspects of the upcoming discovery of unicorns on Mars.
    Whoa, your unicorn as been really busy. Too bad it is not the more honest analogy to the situation, but logical in terms of denial.
    But there is something worth salvaging into you many outburst. Let's not call 'electromagnetic civilization', what is more likely a 'oil dependency', another synonym for 'cheap energy addiction'.
    Maybe some more constructive people with background in psychology, would be able to explain your various deliriums about mythical beast. Don't be afraid Strange, all will be fine at the end.
     

  11. #10  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    This thread is for people to talk about the psychological aspects of the upcoming collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization.
    Coming soon, a thread to talk about the psychological aspects of the upcoming discovery of unicorns on Mars.
    Whoa, your unicorn as been really busy. Too bad it is not the more honest analogy to the situation
    Yeah, you are right. I should have just stuck with "life on Mars", which was my first version: i.e. something that might or might not happen.

    But unicorns are so cute!
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    you presented an opinion as a fact.
    Is it your opinion, or is it a fact ?
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    When you do so knowlingly this is a lie.
    So you know he is lying ? Are 'thoses thing' not factual, AND you know he knows it ? You have been really enable to provide good rebuttal to the very logical and argumented approach to a problem. You still may be right, you know. But assuming that you know for a fact what is in someone else mind is just silly.

    I hope you understand that you have to increase your standard has to put yourself under the same mighty gaze. I think you also may want to question your own passion on this subject.
    I think Futilitist takes way too seriously the various title humans like to hide them self behind (like moderator). He seems young enough to believe he has a mission, but I am afraid he is blowing open doors.
    In fact, there are very few people on this forum that are paranoid enough as to think they must 'wrong' people that are 'lying'.

    I am much more of the opinion that we are just human being, afraid of open doors.
    Last edited by Boing3000; December 3rd, 2012 at 12:02 PM.
    Futilitist likes this.
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    But unicorns are so cute!
    Another historical event: I agree !
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    you presented an opinion as a fact.
    Is it your opinion, or is it a fact ?
    If you are able to read the thread then it should be evident to you that he has an opinion on the matter. For example he says, "I am obviously a strong advocate for the position that we are very close to experiencing a full scale social collapse."

    So you know he is lying ?
    Yes. he acknowledges that the forthcoming collapse is a strongly held viewpoint, yet he called it a fact. That consitutes lying.


    But assuming that you know for a fact what is in someone else mind is just silly.
    I am not discussing what is in his mind, but what is in his posts.


    I think you also may want to question you own passion on this subject.
    ME: Hello Passion, what do you think about this matter.
    My Passion: I think when someone blatantly lies they should be called to account, especially when they wriggle and twist to avoid a simple acknowledgement.
    ME: That makes sense. Thank you for your answer.
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,148
    I remember when the end of the world was predicted for "1986", Nostradamous was interpreted as having foreseen it. But why are people talking of an "upcoming" collapse? Ive been secluded in my deep bunker since the end of 1999, arent the only ones that have survived the Y2K bug those of us like me who have remained in their bunkers all this time? You guys almost sound as if you are connecting from "outside" your Bunkers? As if civilization had survived somehow and is ready to re-collapse all over again? But in any case, Im staying put in my bunker since the Mayans did not spend an infinite time to make and ad infinitum calendar, so Im already setup to survive 2012, but Im not getting out come January, no sir, because 13 is an unlucky number, and after in 2014, Ill stay here since the post-apocalyptic civilization build on the ashes of 2012, itself built on the wasteland of 2000 Y2K apocalypse, which as itself built on the ruins of the 1986 end of the world, is all set to re-collapse in an " upcoming collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization".


    I'll have to re-read your post about the collapse (my memory is, ah, whats the word again..?), but if a collapse occurs, the "psychological" effect might be different depending on the social environment, It appears by looking at US culture that some people would have individualist responses, increasing their rat-race-dog-eat-dog perspective, while in some communities and other cultures, an emergency situation does the exact opposite, it leads to people wanting to stop their daily routine and ask how can I help, and come together to cooperate in way that are seldom seen in ordinary situations and the daily merry-go-round.

    There would be some denial, which reminds me of reaction to limited/instant/short term situation, though different. When the tsunami occurred in (somewhere) some people were standing in confusion or even walking towards the receding ocean beach wondering what was going on (to their doom) while others were running the other way (some of whom might have also wonder what was going on). Ive been in situations where something unexpected occurs and it appears that most people have a short "does-not-compute" moment where they are wondering whats going on (or hesitating) and that they snap out of it when they see other people react. The flip side is that sometimes when others react (in the wrong way) its difficult to not say I'll do the same till I know whats going on (if people run away from a Tiger, you might start running away too even if you haven't seen the tiger).
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    you presented an opinion as a fact.
    Is it your opinion, or is it a fact ?
    If you are able to read the thread then it should be evident to you that he has an opinion on the matter. For example he says, "I am obviously a strong advocate for the position that we are very close to experiencing a full scale social collapse."
    Funny, that is exactly what I said!

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist
    I am obviously a strong advocate for the position that we are very close to experiencing a full scale social collapse. I'll bet a lot of people have figured that out for themselves by now
    And Boing3000 figured it out all by himself! Thus, as I have pointed out before, your continuing posts on this matter are just unnecessary. I think this is supposed to be a thread on the psychology of apocalypse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000
    I think you also may want to question you own passion on this subject.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    ME: Hello Passion, what do you think about this matter.
    My Passion: I think when someone blatantly lies they should be called to account, especially when they wriggle and twist to avoid a simple acknowledgement.
    ME: That makes sense. Thank you for your answer.
    This is a funny little story. Speaking as a writer, though, I would like to suggest a few things that might improve it.

    1. Trivially, you need a question mark to denote that the first line is a question.
    "ME: Hello Passion, what do you think about this matter?"

    2. Less trivial is the missed opportunity to carry the analogy all the way through. This goes to basic logic and creativity.
    "My Passion: I think when someone blatantly lies they should be called to account,..."

    Feel would be a much better word choice here. You think (sort of), but your passion feels.

    3. Also, you should decide on one consistent way to capitalize the names of your characters. This just makes it easier to read.


    ---Futilitist
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo View Post
    Ive been in situations where something unexpected occurs and it appears that most people have a short "does-not-compute" moment where they are wondering whats going on (or hesitating) and that they snap out of it when they see other people react. The flip side is that sometimes when others react (in the wrong way) its difficult to not say I'll do the same till I know whats going on (if people run away from a Tiger, you might start running away too even if you haven't seen the tiger).
    I think that those kind of immediate responses are also called 'guts thinking', more akin to 'reflexes', than 'high level thoughts', if such things exists. I can understand how it could help dealing with Tigers.

    But I have seen some (not so many) cousin behaviors, about matters more diluted in time. 'The Apocalypse' is sure a little too dramatic, but nowadays, it is impossible to make science appealing, without resorting to 'big bang', 'dark energy', or 'god particle'.
    Anyway, the shift of paradigm from cheap energy, to nothing even closely matching its efficiency/proficiency, in a society completely depending on it, may actually be more correctly associated with Apocalypse or catastrophic break-down, than some god guy, with the 42'th hype particle (see other thread).

    Denial, is a much more long term process than 'reflexes'. And I am beginning to think that it is more strong in people whose life-span is shorter than the upcoming mayhem. Again a selfish tendency may explain a lot, but then associated with laziness.
    After all, unless you find that everything is perfect, there is no reason not to immediately take action, before the Tiger finally enter the fray.
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    as long as people have been speculating, some seem drawn to the concept of apocalypse, the end, armageddon, the ragnorock, etc ad infinitum ad nauseum.

    so far, they've been wrong

    (knock on wood)
    The Easter Islanders ran out of wood to knock on.

    ---Futilitist
    I like this example because Easter Islanders had to know what they were doing and yet they did nothing to stop it. I can certainly see some parallels to our modern world here. I've said it before and I'll say it again. This world is in for some very hard times in the not to distant future. Despite what the optimist want to believe, IMO our current sophisticated society is built like a house of cards and it won't take a great deal of disruption to come tumbling down. For instance we are do for some heavy solar activity over the next few years. What if we get hit with one of those very large Solar mass ejections, the kind that might only happen once in 500 years? We have a very large satellite infrastructure that we depend on for our modern way of life. What would happen to our world if we lost them all in one swift event? Hard times for sure.
    Futilitist likes this.
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    I like this example because Easter Islanders had to know what they were doing and yet they did nothing to stop it
    Or maybe they all bet on some God intervention to proceed further with their civilization, or maybe it was a conscious suicidal on large scale. There are also contemporary example, like haiti. Your example about electronic disruption, and fragility of our house of card is ok, but more suited to the other thread. I personally think that such an event may be just be a game changer by wiping out technocupian'ism from the global mindset. It will be harsh, but not deadly.

    Anyway those examples are just on target, because, except for laziness and social inerty, why on earth would we, as a civilization run a program based on infinite growth or technological progress. The strange thing, when I discuss those points with my friends, is the general helplessness their feel about the situations. But anyway, we wake up every morning and then work our ass of to worsen the situation (in a kind of fatalist way).

    On the other thread, I have discover that denial would lead apparently scientific minded people to freak out and begin to threaten people, when not time traveling to put the past into the future, and all kind of revisionist procedure.

    I think it goes beyond standard denial. In fact climate change has not even been mentioned because apparently we have still plenty of fossil fuel to drop in the atmosphere, so apparently, climat is also OK.

    For no apparent reason, some accusation a hidden agenda has been dropped on the other thread. Even for me, this is too much paranoïa. Even so, stretching so far, what kind of agenda is it, to question the future equilibrium of a society without energy ?
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    I like this example because Easter Islanders had to know what they were doing and yet they did nothing to stop it
    Or maybe they all bet on some God intervention to proceed further with their civilization, or maybe it was a conscious suicidal on large scale. There are also contemporary example, like Haiti. Your example about electronic disruption, and fragility of our house of card is OK, but more suited to the other thread. I personally think that such an event may be just be a game changer by wiping out technocupian'ism from the global mindset. It will be harsh, but not deadly.

    Anyway those examples are just on target, because, except for laziness and social inerty, why on earth would we, as a civilization run a program based on infinite growth or technological progress. The strange thing, when I discuss those points with my friends, is the general helplessness their feel about the situations. But anyway, we wake up every morning and then work our ass of to worsen the situation (in a kind of fatalist way).

    On the other thread, I have discover that denial would lead apparently scientific minded people to freak out and begin to threaten people, when not time traveling to put the past into the future, and all kind of revisionist procedure.

    I think it goes beyond standard denial. In fact climate change has not even been mentioned because apparently we have still plenty of fossil fuel to drop in the atmosphere, so apparently, climate is also OK.

    For no apparent reason, some accusation a hidden agenda has been dropped on the other thread. Even for me, this is too much paranoia. Even so, stretching so far, what kind of agenda is it, to question the future equilibrium of a society without energy ?
    Yes, for those of us who grew up with all the creature comforts. A world with decreasing energy supply will be a very tough pill to swallow. I'm sure those parts of the world that don't have our creature comforts won't suffer as much.
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    This thread is for people to talk about the psychological aspects of the upcoming collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization.
    I have observed the exchanges within this thread, and although I am uncertain that the conclusions you and perhaps others have personally reached that it may result in an apocalyptic scenario, I shall for a time entertain that it will shall be one.

    What do you wish to know?
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    This thread is for people to talk about the psychological aspects of the upcoming collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization.
    I have observed the exchanges within this thread, and although I am uncertain that the conclusions you and perhaps others have personally reached that it may result in an apocalyptic scenario, I shall for a time entertain that it will shall be one.

    What do you wish to know?
    This is a question I have never encountered before. Interesting. Most of the psychological aspects I've been concerned with, so far, have centered around denial and deflection of the truth. You seem very open minded. I love thought experiments.


    To start with, how does it make you feel? Happy or sad?

    Are you surprised/shocked by the news?

    Do you feel an urge or compulsion to warn others?

    Do you feel an urge or compulsion to flee civilization?

    Can you think of something positive to be gained from your new found knowledge?

    ---Futilitist
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,589
    Actually Im beginning to wonder if this is another mind experiment such as the one you tried with the scienceforum.org site?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    How does it make you feel?
    Slightly annoyed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Happy or sad?
    I imagine I would have mixed feelings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Are you surprised/shocked by the news?
    I imagine I wouldn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Do you feel an urge or compulsion to warn others?
    Before or after?

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Do you feel an urge or compulsion to flee civilization?
    If by civilization, you meant my home; I suppose I wouldn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Can you think of something positive to be gained from your new found knowledge?
    What new found knowledge are you referring to?
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Actually Im beginning to wonder if this is another mind experiment such as the one you tried with the scienceforum.org site?
    A mind experiment ? Does sharing actual thought/feeling qualify for a mind experiment on the scienceforum.whatever ?
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Most of the psychological aspects I've been concerned with, so far, have centered around denial and deflection of the truth.
    This sounds as if you think that anyone who has a different opinion to you is in denial of the truth. That can't be right, surely.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Most of the psychological aspects I've been concerned with, so far, have centered around denial and deflection of the truth.
    This sounds as if you think that anyone who has a different opinion to you is in denial of the truth. That can't be right, surely.
    We have gone trough that denial phase before on the other thread, haven't we ?
    'Deflection of the truth' is probably not a very well coined terminology, but when you display official statistics, in precise and scientific manner, and moderators just keep telling you 'wrong' without explaining how they are wrong (effectively chastening the heretics), or bothering to specify where to check their supposedly contradictory data, then that poor terminology may be quite correct.

    But something tells me that I am going to be wronged again.

    After all, on this behaviors and psychology thread, I can unleash my all mighty wrong detector fueled by my arrogant certitude of having been right all my life, because I happen to live in a bubble where I can change the rules at will to fulfill my optimistic desire. Very scientific.
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    6
    If you said there would be a financial crisis of epic proportions in 2005 then most people would have considered you an alarmist. Indeed many experts considered the financial crisis as happened to be an impossibility according to the conventions of neoclassical economics. It is my opinion, and it is only my opinion, that a similar situation will occur with this so called apocalypse event. I am not sure I would personally use this term but I can see how Futilitist came to use this term.

    Once the enormous debt bubble finally bursts I can say it will possibly spell the end for capitalism. What comes next after the full implications of a financial meltdown are realised is anyone's guess but it is my belief it will be a truly unprecedented event in human history. This coming crisis, unlike any other crisis in the past, will be different as there was always another continent or another energy resource to utilise. Never before has the whole world been so interconnected and dependent on another to meet its basic needs. While this arrangement has given us many benefits over the years the economic and ecological systems are degrading and becoming increasingly less resilient.

    It seems to me this growth and the accompanying problems that come from this growth has left humanity cornered on multiple fronts (high debt loads, poorer energy supplies, depleting resources, global warming and degrading ecosystems). I suppose there is the slim possibly that some technology will be found that could solve this situation (such as fusion energy) but it will only buy time. I say this because ultimately perpetual growth cannot be maintained on a finite planet. If energy is not the limiting factor it will be some other factor.

    Technology does not solve this fundamental problem as ultimately technology/human innovation is not limitless; it is bound by the laws of physics. What technology can do is postpone the day of reckoning but the day will come eventually. It is ironic but the more innovative we are the more it will make the problem worse as the longer this event is postponed the longer these problems will be compounded due to the nature of exponential growth. Saying all that, I do not think this discussion will be productive as people have clearly made up their minds on this matter. As they say: only time will tell but I will make this bet. I would be very surprised if our situation did not take a drastic turn for the worse within the next 10 years. Let us wait and see who is right. I hope with all my heart I am wrong but fear I am maybe right.
    arKane likes this.
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    monsta666

    Welcome to the forum. If we can hold the worst of it off for 20 to 30 years. Then it won't be my problem to worry about.
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    monsta666

    Welcome to the forum. If we can hold the worst of it off for 20 to 30 years. Then it won't be my problem to worry about.
    Hello arKane,

    Feels good to be back.

    Unfortunately, we surely will not be able to hold off the worst for even 5 years, let alone 30, IMOMHO*. I wish I was wrong, too.

    *note---IMOMHO = In My Own Most Humble Opinion
    (how am I doing so far?)

    ---Futilitist
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    The last four posters form the core of a potential new apocalypse club at thescienceforum.com. Strength in numbers, united we stand and all. We are *WAY* out numbered. Anyone interested?

    ---Futilitist
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor arKane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    1,181
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    monsta666

    Welcome to the forum. If we can hold the worst of it off for 20 to 30 years. Then it won't be my problem to worry about.
    Hello arKane,

    Feels good to be back.

    Unfortunately, we surely will not be able to hold off the worst for even 5 years, let alone 30, IMOMHO*. I wish I was wrong, too.

    *note---IMOMHO = In My Own Most Humble Opinion
    (how am I doing so far?)

    ---Futilitist
    Welcome back. I doubt if were going to get to much ocean rise in 5 years. So I would be very interested in what you think might be very bad in the next 5?
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    scoobydoo1,

    When I started the thread, I was thinking psychological aspects as opposed to psychoanalysis, but here goes:

    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    How does it make you feel?
    Slightly annoyed.
    Interesting. Only slightly?

    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Happy or sad?
    I imagine I would have mixed feelings.
    Can you go a little deeper on this? Can you elaborate on these feelings?

    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Are you surprised/shocked by the news?
    I imagine I wouldn't.
    So were you expecting something like this all along?

    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Do you feel an urge or compulsion to warn others?
    Before or after?
    I was thinking more before. What would you warn them about after?

    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Do you feel an urge or compulsion to flee civilization?
    If by civilization, you meant my home; I suppose I wouldn't.
    Is that because you feel safe there? Or some other reason?

    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Can you think of something positive to be gained from your new found knowledge?
    What new found knowledge are you referring to?
    The knowledge that the world as we know it, and depend upon it, is coming to a rapid and complete end, likely resulting in your own death, as well as the deaths of everyone you know. And absolutely nothing can be done to stop it. It's OK to cry.*



    *note---all suppositions contained in the harmless thought experiment, above, are strictly IMOMHO, of course.

    ---Futilitist
    Last edited by Futilitist; December 4th, 2012 at 10:30 PM. Reason: html fix
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    When I started the thread, I was thinking psychological aspects as opposed to psychoanalysis
    Which is why I have asked "What do you wish to know?", but your questions were phrased in a way that were directed at how I would personally react by your use of the word "you" (referring to me)

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Interesting. Only slightly?
    Yes, only slightly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Can you go a little deeper on this? Can you elaborate on these feelings?
    I'm afraid I am unable to, not because I do not wish to, but simply because of the assortment of emotions/feelings one might have when faced with a scenario which you are speculating may occur. What I am able to offer is that upon realizing that the "world" has changed in a mildly drastic way, certain creature comforts are no longer within arm's reach (possibly ever), and untested approaches to life one may have harbored can now be manifested and possibly applied in a new way of life.

    In short, mixed feelings seem the most accurate and honest way to describe it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    So were you expecting something like this all along?
    No, not expecting.

    My mind frequently entertain possible scenarios (however likely or unlikely) by factoring different variables into it that may lead to different outcomes, and one such as the one you have put on the table hasn't escaped my fancy (yes, I do entertain these scenarios as a form of leisure).

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    I was thinking more before.
    I do not possess sufficient information to be forewarned(?) that such a scenario will/shall take place, hence I imagine I wouldn't (warn others that is).

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    What would you warn them about after?
    I imagine I would offer them my personal insights (if I have any to offer) as to what they may expect in the coming days when dealing with others who may be less pragmatic when faced with this change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Is that because you feel safe there?
    No.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Or some other reason?
    When taking a stand or establishing a base of operation, a familiar locale is always preferred; especially one such as mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    The knowledge that the world as we know it, and depend upon it, is coming to a rapid and complete end, likely resulting in your own death, as well as the deaths of everyone you know. And absolutely nothing can be done to stop it. It's OK to cry.
    Something that may register as positive? A catalyst that serves to spank the children of the world reminding them to not forget that there be predators out there. Yes, a culling of sorts may be in order given what I have witness these many years.
    Futilitist likes this.
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    monsta666

    Welcome to the forum. If we can hold the worst of it off for 20 to 30 years. Then it won't be my problem to worry about.
    Hello arKane,

    Feels good to be back.

    Unfortunately, we surely will not be able to hold off the worst for even 5 years, let alone 30, IMOMHO*. I wish I was wrong, too.

    *note---IMOMHO = In My Own Most Humble Opinion
    (how am I doing so far?)

    ---Futilitist
    Welcome back. I doubt if were going to get to much ocean rise in 5 years. So I would be very interested in what you think might be very bad in the next 5?
    Thank you.

    The problem is the economy. It is teetering on the edge of the fiscal cliff as we speak. I think of it as a physical cliff, not in metaphorical terms, but in terms of it being the result of physics.

    The stock markets are beginning to give way, as we speak. I think we have, just in the last few weeks or so, crossed the threshold for the end of world GDP growth forever. This must soon force a massive revaluation of basically everything. Once the economy tanks hard, positive feedback loops will quickly kick in to drive the entire system into total collapse. The overall rate of collapse will accelerate rapidly as the entire human world thermodynamic system seeks a new much lower energy equilibrium.

    Have you read the David Korowizc paper?

    Please check out the Apocalypse soon? thread. I begin with the Korowizc paper and make the case from there.

    I think that thread is a good place good place to discuss the physical stuff. I tried really hard to make it informative, anyway.

    ---Futilitist
    Last edited by Futilitist; December 4th, 2012 at 11:32 PM. Reason: punctuation fix
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    When I started the thread, I was thinking psychological aspects as opposed to psychoanalysis
    Which is why I have asked "What do you wish to know?", but your questions were phrased in a way that were directed at how I would personally react by your use of the word "you" (referring to me)
    The psychoanalysis thing was meant to be a bit tongue in cheek. The use of the word you was intentional since you said you were willing to accept the possibility, and try the thought experiment. Thank you for being willing to share some of you feelings here.

    For those who see thought experiments as a giant, evil, red flag, please note the harmless outcome of the one we just completed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    The knowledge that the world as we know it, and depend upon it, is coming to a rapid and complete end, likely resulting in your own death, as well as the deaths of everyone you know. And absolutely nothing can be done to stop it. It's OK to cry.
    Something that may register as positive? A catalyst that serves to spank the children of the world reminding them to not forget that there be predators out there. Yes, a culling of sorts may be in order given what I have witness these many years.
    Congratulations, if you have found a positive utility in TEOTWAWKI, then you are also a Futilitist.

    Finding Utility in Futility = Futilitism


    ---Futilitist
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Actually Im beginning to wonder if this is another mind experiment such as the one you tried with the scienceforum.org site?
    Were you a part of that infamous experiment? I can't remember.

    Anyway, I'd rather forget about that now. What's in the past is in the past, as far as I am concerned.

    ---Futilitist
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Hey arKane,

    I just started poking around since returning from my hiatus, and I found this is post, and others in the same vein, by skeptic, on the Carbon Crunch thread. You called this post an example of wishful thinking:

    Quote Originally Posted by arKane View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    arKane

    Any solution will be global, for the simple reason that it will be in demand, and it will be bought. It will be part of the new global economy. There will be no world government in the foreseeable future, but there will be an increasingly integrated global village, with international trade, communications, and travel.

    If, for example, thorium is used to make nuclear reactors, and the power used in new technology battery operated cars, then the nations with the thorium technology, and the nations with that battery technology, will sell their products and services to the rest of the world.

    In this way, any solution will be global.
    Yeah! But do you really think there's going to be enough resources for everybody to have enough? <Wishful Thinking>
    Wishful thinking is clearly a form of denial. This thread is a good place to elaborate on why, IYHO, you might think this is a correct characterization.

    ---Futilitist
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Congratulations, if you have found a positive utility in TEOTWAWKI, then you are also a Futilitist.
    After understanding a little more on how your mind works with our recent exchange. Yours is a little clique/predictable but that is to be expected after reading the other exchanges you had with others.

    A word of advise, try (emphasis on the word "try") to display less enthusiasm on the certainty of the subject, and be more curious and perhaps receiving (if it is warranted) on why others may have a different view of the subject. The future is a constantly shifting, and while early projections may be the grounds for your certainty, try to understand that it isn't always about denial when others arrive at a different outcome. It may simply be because they have a higher level of skepticism pertaining to your projected conclusions (which isn't necessarily a bad thing with regards to this particular topic).

    If you are really keen on learning or gathering the input from other members instead on relying merely your own, you may have to tone your enthusiasm down a little more. But should your presence here be that similar to a "doomsday preacher", I think we all know how well they're received and viewed, and with good reason.
     

  40. #39  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by monsta666 View Post
    I say this because ultimately perpetual growth cannot be maintained on a finite planet.
    This is a valid statement, yet you appear to base your over all view, which seems pessimistic, on the notion that growth is all we are capable of as a species.

    Let me cite a single example that leads me to a degree of optimism. The birth rate in several countries in Europe has fallen below replacement level. Now this does create a new set of challenges of how a smaller labour force supports a large old, retired population. But governments are already addressing such issues.

    We have very clear evidence that the most effective birth control is wealth. Once people reach a sufficiently secure level of income their need to have a brood of children in the wings to support them in old age simply vanishes. As you are probably aware population level is expected to stabilise during this century and perhaps even decline.

    I do not minimise the challenges involved, but I am somewhat opitmistic that we can, with human inventiveness find viable solutions.
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by monsta666 View Post
    I say this because ultimately perpetual growth cannot be maintained on a finite planet.
    This is a valid statement, yet you appear to base your over all view, which seems pessimistic, on the notion that growth is all we are capable of as a species.

    Let me cite a single example that leads me to a degree of optimism. The birth rate in several countries in Europe has fallen below replacement level. Now this does create a new set of challenges of how a smaller labour force supports a large old, retired population. But governments are already addressing such issues.

    We have very clear evidence that the most effective birth control is wealth. Once people reach a sufficiently secure level of income their need to have a brood of children in the wings to support them in old age simply vanishes. As you are probably aware population level is expected to stabilise during this century and perhaps even decline.
    I seem to remember the UN estimates from not so long ago that said we could expect 12 billion by 2050, later they estimated 9 billion. They keep revising downward.

    Of course population growth is expected to slow down, since the human species has far overshot it's carrying capacity on earth, in the humble opinion's of many prominent and respected scientists. Certainly, you aren't suggesting that birth control and improving economics are the only factors that demographer's are taking into account for their forecasts these days, are you?


    From Population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Population growth
    increased significantly as the Industrial Revolution gathered pace from 1700 onwards.[11] The last 50 years have seen a yet more rapid increase in the rate of population growth[11] due to medical advances and substantial increases in agricultural productivity, particularly beginning in the 1960s,[12] made by the Green Revolution.[13] In 2007 the United Nations Population Division projected that the world's population will likely surpass 10 billion in 2055.[14]

    In the future, world population has been expected to reach a peak of growth, there it will decline due to economic reasons, health concerns, land exhaustion and environmental hazards. According to one report, it is very likely that the world's population will stop growing before the end of the 21st century. Further, there is some likelihood that population will actually decline before 2100.[15]Population has already declined in the last decade or two in Eastern Europe, the Baltics and in the Commonwealth of Independent States.


    Also, this is another example, like the IPCC, where the UN has conflicts of interest that prevent them from doing good forecasting, as has been discussed elsewhere. This is how denial works at the group level.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I do not minimise the challenges involved, but I am somewhat opitmistic that we can, with human inventiveness find viable solutions.
    In my opinion, you very much do minimize the challenges involved. This last statement is simply a statement of hope, which could potentially be seen as a form of denial as well, IMHO.

    And your position on this point hardly needs further airing (erring?), IMHO.

    ---Futilitist


    EDIT----

    Here is a good article on how better and more realistic models improve population forecasting, and how the UN is missing the mark:

    http://www.realclearscience.com/jour...00_106357.html



    "Two points to notice: First, the authors' projections are tighter than the UN projections, which are all over the place. (For instance, in Europe, the high UN variant is off the charts by around 2020, but under the low UN variant, the population crashes to pre-1950 levels by around 2065. The official UN projection is close to the PNAS authors' probabilistic projection, but note that the authors' probabilistic projection -- at both 80% and 95% confidence -- does not make off-the-charts predictions like the high and low UN variant projections.) Second, out-of-control population growth is not a likely outcome."
    Last edited by Futilitist; December 5th, 2012 at 01:00 AM. Reason: To add humble opinion indicators.
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Maybe I should poke my nose in here. I think this whole thread was started to a large degree because Futilitist was annoyed that I disagree with his pessimism.

    There is no psychological reason for the difference of opinion, which makes the title of the thread a bit silly. The reason I am more optimistic than Futilitist is simply that I look at a wider range of facts, and see a different conclusion. In fact, if psychology is warranted, I see the question as more why so many people, so often seem to fall in love with apocalypse.

    That is nothing new. Apocalypse predictors have been around for thousands of years, though the purported reason for the apocalypse change according to the fashion of the time. In 999 CE (and 1999 CE), it was very widely believed that the new millennium would see the religious apocalypse, with God coming to destroy the wicked and whisk the faithful into heaven. During the renaissance, the doomsday was military and political, due to the expansion of the Ottoman Empire. Over the last 100 years, we see ecology, resource depletion, and other modern rationalisations for a belief in apocalypse. In 2001, a book was published on this topic - the psychology of belief in doomsday - though I do not have a copy.

    Futilitist has focused his doomsday projection mainly on resource depletion. I disagree, because I see the new resource exploitation under development. Nothing is threatened with depletion without an alternative being researched and developed. Major world scientific organisations constantly change their predictions, pushing problems further into the future, as new developments force a re-evaluation. Fracking did that for natural gas, which is now far more abundant than anyone realised.

    Resource depletion predictions are like doomsday predictions. They are made constantly, and are constantly revised.

    I also remember the book : The Population Bomb - by Dr. Paul Ehrlich, which was published in 1968 and predicted that population growth and limits on food production would lead to a billion or more people starving to death before 1980. Also wars and other strife by desperate hungry people. We all know that never happened. The reason is the Green Revolution. New crops were developed that doubled food production per acre.

    That book was one of numerous disaster predictors which proved wrong. In fact, if we limit this statement to major disasters, like those that Futilitist predicts, such doomsday prophets have an all time record of zero. Not one such prediction has ever actually happened.

    On population, we look at a global fertility rate today of 2.4. Fifty years ago, it was 5.5. It has dropped that much and is still dropping. Allowing for a small level of child mortality, 2.4 is actually about replacement rate. The only reason the population is still growing is that the previous generation had a high fertility rate, leaving the current generation with lots of young people, who are reproducing about now. Too few older people are dying to compensate for the new babies. But that cannot last, and a leveling out of the population is inevitable this century. Note, of course, that developed western nations have the opposite problem. Too few young people and a declining population.

    Anyway, the reason some people believe in doomsday, and others like me do not, is not some weird psychology. It is more a matter of which facts we focus on. I focus on a broader historical perspective. Futilitist focuses on present day problems. I hope that Futilitist is a young man, because he will then have time to see how wrong he was.
    John Galt likes this.
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    There is no psychological reason for the difference of opinion, which makes the title of the thread a bit silly. The reason I am more optimistic than Futilitist is simply that I look at a wider range of facts, and see a different conclusion.
    Based on what I have seen so far, this is not true. Why do you assume I haven't looked at your side? You are projecting. In fact, I pay very close attention to all relevant technological breakthroughs. I have repeatedly presented specific refutations to your hopeful claims, backed up by solid evidence.

    But in response, you keep making the assertion that we will be OK because we have alternative technologies at the ready, which is obviously not true. You also claim that history proves that we have nothing to worry about. That is fallacious. You also claim that we have plenty of fossil fuels left, ignoring completely the issue of extraction rates. You ignore the potential problems that will occur because of rising energy costs. And you make the scientifically impossible claim, which no moderator here seems to have a problem with, that EROEI does not matter. This is a clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics, one of the most basic and well established principles in all of science. These positions are all evidence of denial.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    In fact, if psychology is warranted, I see the question as more why so many people, so often seem to fall in love with apocalypse.
    And that is a valid topic for this thread. Feel free to post such ideas. You should send an invite to the Charlatan John Michael Greer. He is basically the king of apocalypse lite and he has a whole book about how nutty doomsayers have always been wrong. His ideas about fear of continuing basically normal life in a slow and almost imperceptible collapse are great examples of psychological projection in action. Mass delusion is also evident in his followers.

    I will, however, encourage others to ignore all of your crazy ideas here on this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Anyway, the reason some people believe in doomsday, and others like me do not, is not some weird psychology.
    I never said that you don't believe in doomsday because of some weird psychology. I am talking about normal psychology. Denial of the upcoming apocalypse is normal. Most people I talk to are at some level of denial with respect to this.

    The UN, the IPCC, the IEA, and the mod staff of this forum are all normal.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I hope that Futilitist is a young man, because he will then have time to see how wrong he was.
    I am 50.

    ---Futilitist
    arKane likes this.
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    But in response, you keep making the assertion that we will be OK because we have alternative technologies at the ready, which is obviously not true. You also claim that history proves that we have nothing to worry about. That is fallacious. You also claim that we have plenty of fossil fuels left, ignoring completely the issue of extraction rates. You ignore the potential problems that will occur because of rising energy costs. And you make the scientifically impossible claim, which no moderator here seems to have a problem with, that EROEI does not matter. This is a clear violation of the second law of thermodynamics, one of the most basic and well established principles in all of science. These positions are all evidence of denial.
    I am going to have to deal with these points, since all of them are incorrect.

    1. "We will be OK because we have alternative technologies at the ready". No, I did not say that. Alternative technologies are under development. That development is slow, because right now there is no urgency. It is a reality of economics that developments accelerate sharply at times of urgency. Wars are the best example of that.**

    2. "History proves we have nothing to worry about". No, I did not say that, either. I have made it clear that there are problems. What history shows is that solving problems is something humanity is very good at, and when we cannot solve problems we learn to live with them - we manage them. In the mean time, those problems are still problems and carry a cost.

    3. Ignoring the issue of extraction rates. I do not ignore them. I am aware, though, as you do not appear to be, that this is an old, old problem. Extraction techniques are a continuously developing problem in engineering, and those techniques are in a state of continuous improvement. As I pointed out to you once, the extraction of gold is something that has improved to the point that there are now thousands of tonnes of the yellow metal in various vaults, in spite of the fact that our earliest methods could only produce a few grams. Extracting things like shale oil is difficult and expensive, but will get easier and cheaper over time, as these kinds of things always do.

    4. "EROEI does not matter". I did not say that either, in the general sense. I said there were special cases, like charging a battery, where we had negative EROIE, and that this was acceptable. Of course, EROEI matters. The degree to which it matters, though, may vary, and sometimes we accept a low or even negative amount where the result is a more convenient type of energy.

    Our discussion, Futilitist, will be happier and more friendly, if you try to understand what I say, and make an effort not to misquote me.

    ** Here is an example of the kind of development that is under way. It will take 30 to 40 years and cost over $1 trillion to get up and going (not too bad spread over 30 years). That is inside my 50 year estimate for running out of fossil fuel.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1205200216.htm
    Last edited by skeptic; December 5th, 2012 at 10:11 PM.
     

  45. #44  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I apologise skeptic for the limitation of the forum that allows me to assign only one Like to your last post. You nailed it.
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Thanks for the appreciation, John. A positive comment always makes me feel good.
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Thanks for the appreciation, John. A positive comment always makes me feel good.
    Very revealing, the dependency on feeling good, is a perfectly normal characteristics.
    Unstable people do that by thinking that a hero will come and safe us (the optimists)
    Unstable people do that by thinking that there is nothing to do anyway (the pessimists)
    Balance people do that by searching endorsement of some friends. Congratulation, you are not beyond rational reach.
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Boing

    I will confess to being utterly and completely human. I feel normal human emotions, and that includes appreciation for a kind and encouraging comment.
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    1. "We will be OK because we have alternative technologies at the ready". No, I did not say that.
    You may soft pedal your denial, because if that is the only way you want to deal with the future, you may be in for some trouble.
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Alternative technologies are under development.
    déjà vu. The only valid technology you know of is Torium base (that is Uranium based) reactor. An old technology. Will avoid the collapse of Nuclear industry, at best.
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    That development is slow, because right now there is no urgency.
    lol. Just lol. There is no urgency. lol rotfl
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    It is a reality of economics that developments accelerate sharply at times of urgency. Wars are the best example of that.**
    Interesting optimist declaration. Now war accelerate peace technology. lol ? no, not this time.
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    2. "History proves we have nothing to worry about". No, I did not say that, either.
    No, you write it. Do you know we read you ? Try going up tree line near your **. That is beyond denial, or dishonesty. You are making a fool of yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I have made it clear that there are problems.
    You have ? What problems are you talking about ? Causality ?
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    What history shows is that solving problems is something humanity is very good at
    You did not say that (history proves balbla) remember ?
    What problems did we have that we solved ? Can you be more specific ?
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    and when we cannot solve problems we learn to live with them - we manage them. In the mean time, those problems are still problems and carry a cost.
    like if you had a choice. You are not a good learner, but that is not a problem, grown up people will bail you out.
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    3. Ignoring the issue of extraction rates. I do not ignore them. [... skipped useless denial ...]
    Still squeezing that old sponge ?
    You ignore them because you are scared by numbers in units.
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    4. "EROEI does not matter". I did not say that either, in the general sense.
    No, not in the general sense, but the particular, just above in the "... skipped useless denial ..." skipped part.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I said there were special cases, like charging a battery, where we had negative EROIE, and that this was acceptable. Of course, EROEI matters. The degree to which it matters, though, may vary, and sometimes we accept a low or even negative amount where the result is a more convenient type of energy.
    You have just failed your basic degree physics test.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    ** Here is an example of the kind of development that is under way. It will take 30 to 40 years and cost over $1 trillion to get up and going (not too bad spread over 30 years). That is inside my 50 year estimate for running out of fossil fuel.
    Synthetic fuel could eliminate U.S. need for crude oil, researchers say
    I hope that many will go visit this link and have a good laugh.
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I apologise skeptic for the limitation of the forum that allows me to assign only one Like to your last post. You nailed it.
    Say, that is quite the ringing endorsement there. From a 3,555 post moderator as well. I guess maybe I was wrong about...everything!

    I made your kind note to skeptic big and blue to make up the forum limit on "likes". Hope that helps.

    ---Futilitist
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    I posted this earlier on the Carbon Crunch thread:


    Hey Folks,

    FYI, I just installed a reader poll on the "Apocalypse soon?" thread, if anyone is interested. It has 10 fun multiple choice questions. It might be interesting to see where readers are generally on the really tough questions facing humanity. Please do vote. Thank you.

    ---Futilitist


    Maybe the carbon crunch thread is dead. RIP. Clearly, I needed to repost here, since I am the only one who has voted in the poll!

    I put some thought into the poll. The questions are easy and fun. It really might be informative. It won't take too much of your time. I'd do it for you.

    Come on guys, please vote.

    Thanks.

    ---Futilitist
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    I think this whole thread was started to a large degree because Futilitist was annoyed that I disagree with his pessimism.
    Interesting psychological confession. Some narcissism.
    Right on the target. Some people do think they are the center of the world, the progress, the thread. Some even think disagreement is valid response to pessimism.
    Pessimism: water is cold and wet and full of bacteria
    Optimism: water is a divine substance that in every circumstance bring joy and pleasure.
    Realist : water is a liquid composed of 2H and an O and .................

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    There is no psychological reason for the difference of opinion, which makes the title of the thread a bit silly.
    Is that so ? Would you please site your sources ? Only one of the many studies that prove that there is no correlation between psychological state, like fear, anger, joy, denial, schizophrenia, love, high on crack, and the way you agree with other people ?
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    The reason I am more optimistic than Futilitist is simply that I look at a wider range of facts, and see a different conclusion.
    Optimistic conclusion, even by optimistic standard. you are more optimistic, because you have that mental weakness, others not. In your frame of reference, the Christ would probably by a doomsday machine.
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    In fact, if psychology is warranted, I see the question as more why so many people, so often seem to fall in love with apocalypse.
    Yes, being in love with on word, or another ones like optimism is very weird. Thinking that other are in love of it is indeed very reveling.
    I love cake BTW, not the word cake, the cake.
    Can you give me one reason why someone would love Apocalypse ?
    Can you give me one reason why someone would think others love Apocalypse ? (beside Religious institution, that love the cash return). There is at least one, examine yourself, and you'll find it.
    Last edited by Boing3000; December 6th, 2012 at 08:27 AM.
    Futilitist likes this.
     

  53. #52  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Futilitist has focused his doomsday projection mainly on resource depletion. I disagree, because I see the new resource exploitation under development. Nothing is threatened with depletion without an alternative being researched and developed. Major world scientific organisations constantly change their predictions, pushing problems further into the future, as new developments force a re-evaluation. Fracking did that for natural gas, which is now far more abundant than anyone realised.
    One example of this would be the likelihood that the energy available from methane clathrate concentrations in the seabed are at least equal to and possibly an order of magnitude greater than the total energy extracted and yet to be extracted from conventional oil and gas.

    What about the carbon dioxide produced by its use? Sequester it in the reservoirs we extracted the oil and gas from. Do we have the technology? When the first oil well was drilled in the US in 1859 it reached a depth of almost 70'. It took weeks to drill. Today we drill wells to reservoirs six miles from the surface location, weaving between pre-existing wells and placing the end point within tens of feet of the target. The technology can be developed.

    I was suspicuous of the book "The Power of Positive Thinking" until I understood the psychology that allowed one to maximise ones potential when one maximises ones belief. It's surprising that some people who claim a knowledge of psychology don't understand this very straightforwards and proven concept.
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    A little course reminder from Richard Heinberg. It never hurts...
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    One example of this would be the likelihood that the energy available from methane clathrate concentrations in the seabed are at least equal to and possibly an order of magnitude greater than the total energy extracted and yet to be extracted from conventional oil and gas.
    oil AND gaz ? A source where we can check this affirmation ? This one quote:
    Commercial use

    The sedimentary methane hydrate reservoir probably contains 2–10 times the currently known reserves of conventional natural gas. This represents a potentially important future source of hydrocarbon fuel. However, in the majority of sites deposits are likely to be too dispersed for economic extraction.[19] Other problems facing commercial exploitation are detection of viable reserves; and development of the technology for extracting methane gas from the hydrate deposits. To date, there has only been one field commercially produced where some of the gas is thought to have been from methane clathrates, Messoyakha Gas Field, supplying the nearby Russian city of Norilsk.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    What about the carbon dioxide produced by its use? Sequester it in the reservoirs we extracted the oil and gas from.
    Whaow. Any idea what kind of volume your are talking about ? Any realistic estimation on the energy needed to re-solidify/compress this gaz ? How you will 'catch' it ? Are you trying to re-invent the perpetual energy machine ? Wait, maybe you don't beleive in antropic induced climate change, in fact, it is not a fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Do we have the technology? When the first oil well was drilled in the US in 1859 it reached a depth of almost 70'. It took weeks to drill. Today we drill wells to reservoirs six miles from the surface location
    Quite correct ! The drill cost now half a billion dollars for deep sea, cost is increasing, EROEI is going to zero. People that informed themselves about that industry, beyond the marketing slogan, knows that industry is no more progressing, no matter the quantity of wishful thinking you inject in it. They are fuel by profit return, not by philanthropic entropy

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    The technology can be developed.
    Well, if you can do such statements as if they were facts, and not mere hypothesis, then I Will say: No they cannot.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I was suspicuous of the book "The Power of Positive Thinking" until I understood the psychology that allowed one to maximise ones potential when one maximises ones belief. It's surprising that some people who claim a knowledge of psychology don't understand this very straightforwards and proven concept.
    Very correct. I also have been very surprised by people thinking that things happen only because you beleive them. Some use the unicorn analogy. Things happen because their CREATOR believe they could do it (them self). Not by SPECTATOR making prayers in newspaper/forum.
    Creative people knows that the first thing to avoid, is false friend. Ideas that you take for granted and that when you want to use them just disappear in a puff of smoke.
    Creative people also know that good revolution are based on previous proven working concept. They try to sit on shoulder of giants, not to beg for a industry to fulfill their dream.
    Futilitist likes this.
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    It would seem that the various disagreements your folks are having here have not been resolved. If this thread is merely another arena for the same line of discussion, perhaps it would be best to merge it with the other one so it can be continued there instead. But should some of you still wish to discuss the psychological aspects of a speculative scenario such as the one mentioned in the opening post, perhaps it would be best if some of you stay on topic.

    Since I will be traveling abroad for the couple of days, I will drop by if the opportunity presents itself and observe if any progress has been made here. Before I go, I have some advise for those who are willing to listen. You aren't required to agree with Futilitist's assessment to participate in this discussion, just entertain the idea that it might (not necessarily will) come true, and have a non-antagonistic discussion if you are able to.

    @ Futilitist & Boing3000, will you two at least try not to bait those who might disagree with your projected conclusion of whether this scenario will come true, and perhaps focus on how the populace will react and possibly change their current lifestyle to adjust to the proposed scenario outcome. That would at least make for an interesting discussion and read for some of us.
    Last edited by scoobydoo1; December 6th, 2012 at 10:17 AM.
     

  56. #55  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Creative people also know that good revolution are based on previous proven working concept. They try to sit on shoulder of giants, not to beg for a industry to fulfill their dream.
    I don't have time to repsond to your imbalanced views. I'm too busy helping an industry fulfill a dream.
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    how the populace will react and possibly change their current lifestyle to adjust to the proposed scenario outcome. That would at least make for an interesting discussion and read for some of us.
    I agree, but I was considering this thread as focusing on psychological aspect, like fear and denial, hope and the likes.
    Really I don't feel like doing speculation on how populace would react (in the future). There will be a tons of different reactions I suppose, kind of chaotic.

    I am more interest to understands more deeply the various factors ACTUALLY at play, that make very intelligent people kind of numb.
    I can draw some basic classifications:
    -the startled : they sit on the middle of the road staring at the lights coming at them.
    -the drunk : they can not drop their dependency to driving fast and crazy.
    -the innocent : they don't even know there is a problem, they are enslaved in the back seat, with no access to education.
    -the pragmatist : they cannot care less, because frankly, they are not on the road, or can quit the car. (the top 1% and the bottom 1%)

    What I really cannot understand is that most people can find DRAMATIC the end of a boys band, but are totally apathetic to the end of perpetual growth paradigm that is required by their way of life. Both knowledge are 14 years old level.

    I would be interested by your point of view.
     

  58. #57  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,064
    'Apocalyptic weather' is more likely to be the first line of concern in my opinion, which will of course have a domino effect on all of the infrastructure upon which most of us are dependent. New Zealand only hours ago was struck by a tornado which swept through neighborhoods around New Zealand's largest city Thursday, killing three people and forcing 250 more to evacuate damaged and powerless homes.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2249360.html

    I believe skeptic resides in New Zealand and may be able to give us more details.

    Yesterday, another dramatic weather event claimed far more lives.

    NEW BATAAN, Philippines — A powerful typhoon that washed away emergency shelters, a military camp and possibly entire families in the southern Philippines has killed almost 350 people with nearly 400 missing, authorites said Thursday.

    Typhoon Bopha: Death Toll Tops 350 In Philippines; Scores Missing In Worst-Hit Areas (VIDEO)
    The weather is our greatest challenge, depending on where we may live and it has always been so. The planet itself, our habitat, is constantly evolving, and while our species is a meddlesome nuisance, undoubtedly contributing in some measure to these changes, I doubt that even if we were capable of a global concerted effort that we would be capable of influencing that process in any largely significant manner.

    Like any other species, we shall have to pay the price and as we are a adaptive species, some shall survive unless the planet becomes totally untenable, in which case all is mute anyway. Life in the 'developed world' stands to experience the most shock, IMO. Existence has been so tenuous in many other parts of the world that the people living there will be far better prepared for any devastating effects, psychologically at least, and sadly, with every death, there are that many fewer persons in need of the limited resources.

    (Sheesh....people in these parts get their knickers in a twist if the grocery truck is delayed by a day and they can't get their 1% Dairyland milk or baby arugula. When the highway washed out in June (unprecedented continuous heavy rainfall and late spring snow pack in the mountains) and no vehicles could get through for five days, our corporation actually sent a Hercules aircraft to move groceries from Watson Lake, Y.T. where our trucks were held up to Whitehorse. One truck that was trapped between communities was opened up to feed those people.)

    The resourceful will manage and many others, resourceful or not, may be in the path of forces beyond their control and I expect many will perish but it has always been so. It only seems more dramatic because we have nearly instantaneous information transmission. In my opinion, we are witnessing ecological evolution, not an apocalypse.

    However, it does irrefutably demonstrate what many have been saying for some time: we really aren't that special or as powerful as we like to credit ourselves. For al our accomplishments, we are still the product of nature, and we are nature's to nurture or vanquish.
    Last edited by scheherazade; December 6th, 2012 at 10:47 AM. Reason: Correct a link.
    arKane likes this.
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor scoobydoo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,240
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    I would be interested by your point of view.
    Perhaps after I've landed in HongKong tomorrow and if I am able to get online. Right now, I have to get some sleep if I am to make my early flight out in the morning.
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Hello Scheherazade,

    I agree that climate change is also a tough thing that is coming. Maybe it is worth pondering in on the other thread, because it is yet another variable that show that we live in a closed environment, and quite unique.

    Regarding the psychology of it, I muse on the fact that it is a blessing in disguise. Humans do not fear and do not prepare, unless it is an immediate danger, less than a year, which is the average time between two winter, two drought, etc...

    That is sad, but I think the bigger/scarier events are, the better the species would be able to realize and coordinate and act. The speed of change is crucial. There had already been huge climate change in history, but few realize that they occurs on much bigger time span, so the many species can move, or even adapt.

    What is left is a brain that cannot live in constant fear, and that may explain why so many people have already forgot the heavy rain you speak of.

    Playing on fear is, in my point of view, a counter productive attitude, but I thing Apolcalyspe is clearely the correct wording. I just realize how this word has been crushed by newspeak'ist. Once uppon a time, it was suppose to mean "revelation", which is also very funny in the context of the bible (Hey you know what "that's a joke !").
    I kind of understand better some mental attitude which consist to associate it with the "end of time" or something like that. Again very funny. Like if time could stop. Like if the earth without sapiens would be a worst place (or a better). Like if understanding an exponential growth would kill economic exchanges. Strange.
    Now my utterly profound agnosticism may place me well on the border of a bell curve, in normal sampling, but I would expect to me more to the center on thescienceforum.

    I would like to start a thread on: now that the apocalypse is behind us (the revelation of a finite world), what are the various scenarios to adapt to a world without nonrenewable(cheap) energy, with a climate gone berserk, an possibly avoiding to loose 90% of mankind in the process (I would prefer, but it is a personal ethical add-on, Nature don't care).

    I can't. Some denies thoses un-facts (beware John is watching , other as already retreat in a words of fantasy, and 95% of population has more urgent deeds.

    Futilist maybe a little to much on the drummer side, but this nail has to be nailed, first

    The future lies ahead, after the Apocalyspe
    arKane likes this.
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I do not think there will be any "meeting of the minds" on this topic. Futilitist shows his firm conviction by the choice of his user name. Boing is, it seems, not a very good reader, since he keeps responding to things no one has said. We cannot prove what is going to happen, since we are talking of the future, and the only sure way of knowing what will happen in the future is to visit it - a one way journey.
     

  62. #61  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,064
    Throughout history, there have been events of disastrous scale which have had huge impact on the human population, yet we seem to have a very selective memory despite having a rather large brain. Without going too far back in history, we have the following:

    The world's worst natural disasters - World - CBC News

    The only difference that I can see is that because of the increase in human population, more people may be affected adversely and our infrastructure, much of it aging and all of it fragile in the face of the forces of nature, is highly vulnerable.

    As I mention in my previous post, there is a huge percentage of the human population that has been enduring despite a lack of resources and infrastructure and future disasters, natural or man-made, may well be a benefit to them by opening up areas for future expansion.

    Even here in the Yukon, if they turned off the switch, 95% of the population would be fleeing this challenging environment, and I would not be one of them.

    There's a reason that I have a few rabbit snares hanging on the kitchen wall and keep a number of useful hand tools around this place. That old crosscut saw above the window is hardly an ornament. It is very useful for cutting firewood, which remains plentiful, and there is nothing quite as satisfying as wood heat. Were I to win the lottery, I surely would not be moving from here.
     

  63. #62  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    I am more interest to understands more deeply the various factors ACTUALLY at play, that make very intelligent people kind of numb.
    Once again, this is based on the assumption that your point of view is correct and anyone who disagrees is in denial. There is the equally interesting question about why some people are convinced disaster is coming and ignore any evidence that might possibly contradict that.

    (I have no idea which side is correct.)
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Futilitist has focused his doomsday projection mainly on resource depletion. I disagree, because I see the new resource exploitation under development. Nothing is threatened with depletion without an alternative being researched and developed. Major world scientific organisations constantly change their predictions, pushing problems further into the future, as new developments force a re-evaluation. Fracking did that for natural gas, which is now far more abundant than anyone realised.
    One example of this would be the likelihood that the energy available from methane clathrate concentrations in the seabed are at least equal to and possibly an order of magnitude greater than the total energy extracted and yet to be extracted from conventional oil and gas.

    What about the carbon dioxide produced by its use? Sequester it in the reservoirs we extracted the oil and gas from. Do we have the technology? When the first oil well was drilled in the US in 1859 it reached a depth of almost 70'. It took weeks to drill. Today we drill wells to reservoirs six miles from the surface location, weaving between pre-existing wells and placing the end point within tens of feet of the target. The technology can be developed.

    I was suspicuous of the book "The Power of Positive Thinking" until I understood the psychology that allowed one to maximise ones potential when one maximises ones belief. It's surprising that some people who claim a knowledge of psychology don't understand this very straightforwards and proven concept.
    Are you serious? Let's see, where to begin...

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    One example of this would be the likelihood that the energy available from methane clathrate concentrations in the seabed are at least equal to and possibly an order of magnitude greater than the total energy extracted and yet to be extracted from conventional oil and gas.
    This is another great example of wishful thinking. Here are some facts on methane clathrates from the wiki:

    The size of the oceanic methane clathrate reservoir is poorly known, and estimates of its size decreased by roughly an order of magnitude per decade since it was first recognized that clathrates could exist in the oceans during the 1960s and '70s.

    The sedimentary methane hydrate reservoir probably contains 2–10 times the currently known reserves of conventional natural gas. This represents a potentially important future source of hydrocarbon fuel. However, in the majority of sites deposits are likely to be too dispersed for economic extraction.[19] Other problems facing commercial exploitation are detection of viable reserves; and development of the technology for extracting methane gas from the hydrate deposits.

    Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas. Despite its short atmospheric half life of 7 years, methane has a global warming potential of 62 over 20 years and 21 over 100 years (IPCC, 1996; Berner and Berner, 1996; vanLoon and Duffy, 2000). The sudden release of large amounts of natural gas from methane clathrate deposits has been hypothesized as a cause of past and possibly future climate changes. Events possibly linked in this way are the Permian-Triassic extinction event and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

    Climate scientists such as James E. Hansen hypothesize that methane clathrates in the permafrost regions will be released as a result of global warming, unleashing powerful feedback forces which may cause runaway climate change that cannot be controlled.

    Recent research carried out in 2008 in the Siberian Arctic has shown millions of tonnes of methane being released[35][36][37][38][39] with concentrations in some regions reaching up to 100 times above normal.

    The development of alternative energy technology is one of the central plotlines for the new TNT TV series Dallas. Christopher Ewing (Jesse Metcalfe) is developing a method of extracting Methane ice from the ocean floor.


    So methane clathrates are nowhere near ready for wide scale production. And the best estimates today suggest that they may never be. And yet you cling to the hope that someday they will, while, at the same time, denying all evidence to the contrary. Hmm...

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    What about the carbon dioxide produced by its use? Sequester it in the reservoirs we extracted the oil and gas from. Do we have the technology? When the first oil well was drilled in the US in 1859 it reached a depth of almost 70'. It took weeks to drill. Today we drill wells to reservoirs six miles from the surface location, weaving between pre-existing wells and placing the end point within tens of feet of the target.
    OK. This one makes me laugh out loud. This shows how far your cognitive dissonance can take you. You are having some basic conceptual problems here with simple cause and effect. The energy returned on the energy invested in oil production has been dropping since the first well. Today we drill wells to insane depths with the most amazing technology because we have to, not because it is cool! Oil used to be easy and cheap to extract because we extracted the easy oil first, but as we have exhausted the easy oil, we have had to invent new ways to get at what is left. Your upside down explanation ignores even the most basic concepts of peak oil theory. Any new technology to extract oil is subject to, and a product of, diminishing returns. Oil is a finite resource. Think about it.

    And last time I checked, "large-scale CCS deployment is unproven and decades away from being commercialized."

    The technology can be developed.
    In other words we don't have the technology yet.

    And even if some technology could be developed, your statement conveniently leaves out a very important element. That element is time. I, too, feel pretty sure, being the clever little monkeys that we are, that we could develop almost any conceivable technology (within reason, and the laws of physics, of course). But this isn't just blue sky stuff we are talking about here. We have a real deadline!

    You need to make this bold statement: "The technology can be developed in time." And then present specific data to back up your claim, taking into account realistic worst case scenarios. That would be the honest, logical, and scientific approach. Your deep resolute denial makes your reasoning on the whole topic highly suspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I was suspicuous of the book "The Power of Positive Thinking" until I understood the psychology that allowed one to maximise ones potential when one maximises ones belief. It's surprising that some people who claim a knowledge of psychology don't understand this very straightforwards and proven concept.
    Maximizing one's belief, especially in unsound things, seems suspiciously religious to me. Technological triumphalism is a religion. And expecting cool new technology to fall from the sky and save us is very similar to the thinking displayed by the Cargo Cults of the Pacific islands during and after WWII.

    Soon the whole world will be powered by nothing other than the power of positive thinking!


    ---Futilitist
     

  65. #64  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,064
    Futilist,
    If I may make so bold as to comment that participants in a discussion retain higher credibility with their audience if they speak to the topic and do not use comments such as the following, which I have cut and pasted from your post #63.

    This is another great example of wishful thinking.
    And yet you cling to the hope that someday they will, while, at the same time, denying all evidence to the contrary. Hmm...
    OK. This one makes me laugh out loud. This shows how far your cognitive dissonance can take you.

    And even if some technology could be developed, your statement conveniently leaves out a very important element. That element is time. I, too, feel pretty sure, being the clever little monkeys that we are, that we could develop almost any conceivable technology (within reason, and the laws of physics, of course). But this isn't just blue sky stuff we are talking about here. We have a real deadline!
    You need to make this bold statement: "The technology can be developed in time." And then present specific data to back up your claim, taking into account realistic worst case scenarios. That would be the honest, logical, and scientific approach. Your deep resolute denial makes your reasoning on the whole topic highly suspect.
    Maximizing one's belief, especially in unsound things, seems suspiciously religious to me. Technological triumphalism is a religion. And expecting cool new technology to fall from the sky and save us is very similar to the thinking displayed by the Cargo Cults of the Pacific islands during and after WWII.
    Soon the whole world will be powered by nothing other than the power of positive thinking!

    I read a lot of threads and topics and when I encounter such as the above, all I register is "Yata, yata, yata...." and I move on to the next post or thread.

    Somehow, I rather doubt that I am alone in this response.
    Strange likes this.
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Once again, this is based on the assumption that your point of view is correct
    Strange, really, who would base any theory on premise that he knows is false. Honestly why do you do such remark again. Even Christian belief is based on the 'fact' that Jesus exist. Did I have to start all my discussion with them by "if you believe in Jesus, then..." ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    and anyone who disagrees is in denial.
    Anyone who disagree that 2007 is in the past, is in denial. Everyone that does not even bother to site his own sources, and propose 'hunch' instead is in denial.
    Anybody that propose other numbers(cross referenced) is in rebuttal.
    There is the occasional prankster that re-interpret question to have a little fun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    There is the equally interesting question about why some people are convinced disaster is coming and ignore any evidence that might possibly contradict that.
    Absolutely. Which disaster and which evidences ? (maybe on the other thread, because Scoobidoo has made a correct remark?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    (I have no idea which side is correct.)
    You are not fooling anybody, especially yourself. You are the type that can apply Occam's razor.
    It is a principle stating that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected
    Which 'side' are based on past observation, and measured quantity and simple math. And which side is based on assumption about future technological discoveries or new geogical discoveries ?

    Another point worth mentioning is that in one side, you revise your behaviors get in the line of known physical/mathematical law, and well you win-win anyway.
    The other is a bet with the possibility of total collapse, and the 'fact' that climate change does not exist.

    You have an absolute idea on which side is more viable, if not factually provable to be correct (none are, NOR the possibility that our world is just an experiment done by multi dimensional mouses).

    I can take a joke Strange. Are you ?
    Last edited by Boing3000; December 6th, 2012 at 04:45 PM.
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    It would seem that the various disagreements your folks are having here have not been resolved. If this thread is merely another arena for the same line of discussion, perhaps it would be best to merge it with the other one so it can be continued there instead. But should some of you still wish to discuss the psychological aspects of a speculative scenario such as the one mentioned in the opening post, perhaps it would be best if some of you stay on topic.
    This is my thread and I will decide what is on topic here. I want to talk about psychological denial of the upcoming apocalypse. If you want to entertain the notion that doomsayers are delusional, go for it. That is what I created the thread for. This discussion is meant to give readers a chance to closely evaluate the personal and psychological basis of the beliefs of the various participants. This is a valid addition to the ongoing "great debate". There is nothing else like this on the site. If you wish to talk about another topic, start your own thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    Since I will be traveling abroad for the couple of days, I will drop by if the opportunity presents itself and observe if any progress has been made here. Before I go, I have some advise for those who are willing to listen. You aren't required to agree with Futilitist's assessment to participate in this discussion, just entertain the idea that it might (not necessarily will) come true, and have a non-antagonistic discussion if you are able to.
    Here's some advice from me. This is an interesting thread. People should give it a chance.

    And I am always trying to be open and honest in this discussion. Tough, but fair. I put my cards on the table. I am not antagonistic, nor have I ever been.

    Quote Originally Posted by scoobydoo1 View Post
    @ Futilitist & Boing3000, will you two at least try not to bait those who might disagree with your projected conclusion of whether this scenario will come true, and perhaps focus on how the populace will react and possibly change their current lifestyle to adjust to the proposed scenario outcome. That would at least make for an interesting discussion and read for some of us.
    Just some more advice* from me. Futilitist and Boing3000 are the ones being baited here. Futilitist and Boing3000 are deeply concerned about a topic of vital importance to everyone. Futilitist and Boing3000 wish to discuss it openly and honestly. Futilitist and Boing3000 present real evidence and logical arguments to back up their claims. Futilitist and Boing3000 are clearly winning the debate. Futilitist and Boing3000 have no logical reason to bait anyone. You are clearly projecting.

    *note---I am not an actual licensed psychologist, though I would be willing to play one on TV. Obviously all advice given here is IMHO.


    ---Futilitist
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Creative people also know that good revolution are based on previous proven working concept. They try to sit on shoulder of giants, not to beg for a industry to fulfill their dream.
    I don't have time to repsond to your imbalanced views. I'm too busy helping an industry fulfill a dream.
    Delusional people live in a world of dreams.*


    *note---This is just a general comment, directed at no one in particular.


    ---Futilitist
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Futilitist

    Both sides of this debate have posted good references. Your side posts references about current problems. The more optimistic side presents references about potential solutions. I do not think either side is winning, and I do not think either side will win, because both sets of people are too entrenched in their views.

    However, I think myself and John Galt are a bit more open in our thinking, because we freely admit the problems, and we freely admit they could turn to disasters if no mitigating strategies are found. You and Boing, though, are like religious fundamentalists, in that you will not even admit that John and I have posted possible solutions to those problems. Your views are so entrenched that you cannot even admit to yourself the slightest possibility that anything will end except in utter cilivisation destroying disaster. Futilitist indeed!
     

  70. #69  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Strange, really, who would base any theory on premise that he knows is false. Honestly why do you do such remark again. Even Christian belief is based on the 'fact' that Jesus exist.
    This thread was not about theories or beliefs. It was (notionally) about psychological reaction to an apocalypse. One could discuss that in terms of "the possibility of a hypothetical apocalypse". You don't have to assume such a thing will happen to investigate the psychological ramifications of it.

    And, if you want to consider the psychology of those who have varying degrees of conviction about such a scenario, it is hardly helpful to start out by assuming that one set of your "subjects" are right and others are wrong.

    [Although, that is probably all moot as the thread was obviously just started to have a dig at those who are "in denial"]

    There is the occasional prankster that re-interpret question to have a little fun.
    Oh yeah. That funny guy who tried to pretend that Moore's Law is about all sorts of things except what it is defined to be about. Hilarious.

    Maybe you were confusing it with Stern's Law: "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop."

    Which 'side' are based on past observation, and measure quantity and simple math.
    Well, when people get caught out misrepresenting statistics and redefining well-known laws, I find it hard to take anything else they say seriously. So your arguments have just made me more doubtful that an apocalypse is going to happen soon.
    John Galt likes this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
     

  71. #70  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I'm too busy helping an industry fulfill a dream.
    If it is a better profit margin, like all industries dream about, you are in for severe nightmare, and humanity for a mental hangover (a little artsy technology dating from 1985 may bring some perceptive on what computer technology WAS, when dreams were still affordable).
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    And, if you want to consider the psychology of those who have varying degrees of conviction about such a scenario, it is hardly helpful to start out by assuming that one set of your "subjects" are right and others are wrong
    Yes, Futilitist did not do that he write this:
    This thread is for people to talk about the psychological aspects of the upcoming collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization.

    For some background info, please check out:

    Apocalypse soon?


    ---Futilitist
    That is when John, once again, did not behave honestly and immediately start a right vs wrong feud again.
    Strangely you did just the same, successfully achieving to contradict yourself in the same post because you did not do that:
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    This thread was not about theories or beliefs. It was (notionally) about psychological reaction to an apocalypse
    Congratulation, that is now the second thread that is polluted buy useless bi-polarization, despite the valuable remarks bringed by more un-obstructive people.
    Last edited by Boing3000; December 6th, 2012 at 07:04 PM.
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Sometimes it is good to go back to the OP.

    Futilitist said :

    "This thread is for people to talk about the psychological aspects of the upcoming collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization."

    I am not actually sure what electromagnetic civilisation is. However, I guess we can treat it as synonymous with modern civilisation. The point though, is that Futilitist did not begin the thread as an open question. He assumed from the beginning that there was no doubt about his prediction of the future. That is not an auspicious start. In fact, it makes the OP meaningless. No prediction of the future is ever without doubt.
    scheherazade likes this.
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    'Apocalyptic weather' is more likely to be the first line of concern in my opinion, which will of course have a domino effect on all of the infrastructure upon which most of us are dependent. New Zealand only hours ago was struck by a tornado which swept through neighborhoods around New Zealand's largest city Thursday, killing three people and forcing 250 more to evacuate damaged and powerless homes.

    New Zealand: Tornado Kills 3, Forces Hundreds From Damaged Homes In Country's Largest City (VIDEO)

    I believe skeptic resides in New Zealand and may be able to give us more details.

    Yesterday, another dramatic weather event claimed far more lives.

    NEW BATAAN, Philippines — A powerful typhoon that washed away emergency shelters, a military camp and possibly entire families in the southern Philippines has killed almost 350 people with nearly 400 missing, authorites said Thursday.

    Typhoon Bopha: Death Toll Tops 350 In Philippines; Scores Missing In Worst-Hit Areas (VIDEO)
    The weather is our greatest challenge, depending on where we may live and it has always been so. The planet itself, our habitat, is constantly evolving, and while our species is a meddlesome nuisance, undoubtedly contributing in some measure to these changes, I doubt that even if we were capable of a global concerted effort that we would be capable of influencing that process in any largely significant manner.

    Like any other species, we shall have to pay the price and as we are a adaptive species, some shall survive unless the planet becomes totally untenable, in which case all is mute anyway. Life in the 'developed world' stands to experience the most shock, IMO. Existence has been so tenuous in many other parts of the world that the people living there will be far better prepared for any devastating effects, psychologically at least, and sadly, with every death, there are that many fewer persons in need of the limited resources.

    (Sheesh....people in these parts get their knickers in a twist if the grocery truck is delayed by a day and they can't get their 1% Dairyland milk or baby arugula. When the highway washed out in June (unprecedented continuous heavy rainfall and late spring snow pack in the mountains) and no vehicles could get through for five days, our corporation actually sent a Hercules aircraft to move groceries from Watson Lake, Y.T. where our trucks were held up to Whitehorse. One truck that was trapped between communities was opened up to feed those people.)

    The resourceful will manage and many others, resourceful or not, may be in the path of forces beyond their control and I expect many will perish but it has always been so. It only seems more dramatic because we have nearly instantaneous information transmission. In my opinion, we are witnessing ecological evolution, not an apocalypse.

    However, it does irrefutably demonstrate what many have been saying for some time: we really aren't that special or as powerful as we like to credit ourselves. For al our accomplishments, we are still the product of nature, and we are nature's to nurture or vanquish.
    'Apocalyptic weather' is more likely to be the first line of concern in my opinion, which will of course have a domino effect on all of the infrastructure upon which most of us are dependent.
    I disagree. I believe we are about to experience an economic collapse that will begin a series of positive feedbacks leading to total system failure. I believe that, within the next decade, the electric power grids world wide will begin to shutdown forever.*

    *I really believe, deep down inside, that my last sentence is somewhat optimistic regarding the timeframe. Even I am finding myself forced to make overly optimistic statements to be taken seriously. Gosh, I want to fit in here and I certainly don't want to make waves. The optimism bias in group dynamics, aka Groupthink, in action. That is how the IPCC and the IEA work their magic. Duh.

    The weather is our greatest challenge, depending on where we may live and it has always been so. The planet itself, our habitat, is constantly evolving, and while our species is a meddlesome nuisance, undoubtedly contributing in some measure to these changes, I doubt that even if we were capable of a global concerted effort that we would be capable of influencing that process in any largely significant manner.
    Why on Earth do you believe this? Much of your position and concerns seem valid but this last statement stands out to me as a non sequitur. Please elaborate.

    Like any other species, we shall have to pay the price and as we are a adaptive species, some shall survive unless the planet becomes totally untenable, in which case all is mute anyway.
    This statement also stands out. The planet does not have to be totally untenable for humans to disappear entirely. With the severe, but more slowly developing weather crisis taking out the descendants of the 10% (optimistic) of the people reading this who survive the apocalypse, the entire species has the potential to be completely extinct within a few centuries.

    You vastly underestimate our ability to affect the climate, and you vastly overestimate our resilience as a species.

    Please do explain the last two quotes more fully, so that I, and the readers, can understand your mindset.

    Sheesh....people in these parts get their knickers in a twist if the grocery truck is delayed by a day and they can't get their 1% Dairyland milk or baby arugula.
    Starvation will be a big killer when the monetary system fails and the trucks stop rolling. I agree people are not prepared.

    In my opinion, we are witnessing ecological evolution, not an apocalypse.
    I agree. If we were currently witnessing an apocalypse, I'll bet we would not be hanging on every word of this discussion. We would be too worried about finding food and avoiding violence to be concerned with colorful debates about the future on science forums. Besides, there won't be an internet during the apocalypse.

    ...and sadly, with every death, there are that many fewer persons in need of the limited resources.
    Now there's a positive and self affirming way to think about the apocalypse! Good for you. You may be on the road to Futilitism.

    The search for Utility in Futility = Futilitism


    ---Futilitist
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Futilitist

    I am glad you mentioned a time frame. In the year 2023, as you drive to the local grocery shop for your luxuries, you can reflect on how wrong you were.
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by Boing3000 View Post
    Hello Scheherazade,

    I agree that climate change is also a tough thing that is coming. Maybe it is worth pondering in on the other thread, because it is yet another variable that show that we live in a closed environment, and quite unique.

    Regarding the psychology of it, I muse on the fact that it is a blessing in disguise. Humans do not fear and do not prepare, unless it is an immediate danger, less than a year, which is the average time between two winter, two drought, etc...

    That is sad, but I think the bigger/scarier events are, the better the species would be able to realize and coordinate and act. The speed of change is crucial. There had already been huge climate change in history, but few realize that they occurs on much bigger time span, so the many species can move, or even adapt.

    What is left is a brain that cannot live in constant fear, and that may explain why so many people have already forgot the heavy rain you speak of.

    Playing on fear is, in my point of view, a counter productive attitude, but I thing Apolcalyspe is clearely the correct wording. I just realize how this word has been crushed by newspeak'ist. Once uppon a time, it was suppose to mean "revelation", which is also very funny in the context of the bible (Hey you know what "that's a joke !").
    I kind of understand better some mental attitude which consist to associate it with the "end of time" or something like that. Again very funny. Like if time could stop. Like if the earth without sapiens would be a worst place (or a better). Like if understanding an exponential growth would kill economic exchanges. Strange.
    Now my utterly profound agnosticism may place me well on the border of a bell curve, in normal sampling, but I would expect to me more to the center on thescienceforum.

    I would like to start a thread on: now that the apocalypse is behind us (the revelation of a finite world), what are the various scenarios to adapt to a world without nonrenewable(cheap) energy, with a climate gone berserk, an possibly avoiding to loose 90% of mankind in the process (I would prefer, but it is a personal ethical add-on, Nature don't care).

    I can't. Some denies thoses un-facts (beware John is watching , other as already retreat in a words of fantasy, and 95% of population has more urgent deeds.

    Futilist maybe a little to much on the drummer side, but this nail has to be nailed, first

    The future lies ahead, after the Apocalyspe
    Apocalypse

    An apocalypse (Ancient Greek: ἀποκάλυψις apocálypsis, from ἀπό and καλύπτω meaning 'un-covering'), translated literally from Greek refers to a revelation of something hidden, although this sense did not enter English until the 14th century.[1] In religious contexts it is usually a revelation of hidden meaning - hidden from human knowledge in an era dominated by falsehood and misconception.


    The apocalypse is more than just the end of the world. It is our last opportunity to see how the damn thing really worked in the first place. System failures reveal hidden truths. Fish do not see the water in which they swim. We will soon be fish out of water. We should make the most out of this once in 7 billion lifetimes opportunity. Just my humble opinion.


    Futilist maybe a little to much on the drummer side
    This statement is clearly false, since it violates the well accepted principle: "you can't have too much of a good thing". I, therefore, demand a full retraction. Consider that a warning.


    ---Futilitist
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Futilist,
    If I may make so bold as to comment that participants in a discussion retain higher credibility with their audience if they speak to the topic and do not use comments such as the following, which I have cut and pasted from your post #63.

    This is another great example of wishful thinking.
    And yet you cling to the hope that someday they will, while, at the same time, denying all evidence to the contrary. Hmm...
    OK. This one makes me laugh out loud. This shows how far your cognitive dissonance can take you.

    And even if some technology could be developed, your statement conveniently leaves out a very important element. That element is time. I, too, feel pretty sure, being the clever little monkeys that we are, that we could develop almost any conceivable technology (within reason, and the laws of physics, of course). But this isn't just blue sky stuff we are talking about here. We have a real deadline!
    You need to make this bold statement: "The technology can be developed in time." And then present specific data to back up your claim, taking into account realistic worst case scenarios. That would be the honest, logical, and scientific approach. Your deep resolute denial makes your reasoning on the whole topic highly suspect.
    Maximizing one's belief, especially in unsound things, seems suspiciously religious to me. Technological triumphalism is a religion. And expecting cool new technology to fall from the sky and save us is very similar to the thinking displayed by the Cargo Cults of the Pacific islands during and after WWII.
    Soon the whole world will be powered by nothing other than the power of positive thinking!

    I read a lot of threads and topics and when I encounter such as the above, all I register is "Yata, yata, yata...." and I move on to the next post or thread.

    Somehow, I rather doubt that I am alone in this response.
    I don't know if you are alone or not in your response. I don't think it matters.

    This is a psychology thread, not a physics thread. It is only right and proper to allow a bit of range of expression here. I am playing with the words of psychology to make a serious point. I don't see how anyone is hurt by a humorous, well constructed, on topic poke. It is called wry humor. I have invited everyone, regardless of your position, to join me and do the same. To me, if you feel like it.

    But remember, it has to make sense for it to be funny, and everything you say here will be judged for it's psychological content. It already has been. Those are the basic rules of the game.

    IMHO, it is disingenuous to complain about the rules of the game. They are the same for everyone, and hence fair. Why not play the game instead?

    And please don't encourage others to ignore this thread. That is poor sportsmanship. It is not good for the site. I would not do that to your thread.

    ---Futilitist
     

  78. #77  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,064
    I have returned from work and in reviewing the posts to this thread, I see that you now become both territorial and arrogant in your replies to others, OP.

    I do not chew my cabbage twice and my meaning should be quite clear. I work in circumstances that require precise meaning. Where I use any word that may be interpreted broadly, there is a purpose for that.

    That there is soon to be economic restructuring, I do not doubt. Times are poised to become more challenging for many by the indicators that I observe. That some will survive as long as the planet remains habitable and we don't manage to kill ourselves off, I would place a small wager on.
     

  79. #78  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post

    I don't know if you are alone or not in your response. I don't think it matters.

    This is a psychology thread, not a physics thread. It is only right and proper to allow a bit of range of expression here. I am playing with the words of psychology to make a serious point. I don't see how anyone is hurt by a humorous, well constructed, on topic poke. It is called wry humor. I have invited everyone, regardless of your position, to join me and do the same. To me, if you feel like it.

    But remember, it has to make sense for it to be funny, and everything you say here will be judged for it's psychological content. It already has been. Those are the basic rules of the game.

    IMHO, it is disingenuous to complain about the rules of the game. They are the same for everyone, and hence fair. Why not play the game instead?

    And please don't encourage others to ignore this thread. That is poor sportsmanship. It is not good for the site. I would not do that to your thread.

    ---Futilitist
    Oh, silly me, I did not realize that this was a 'game' thread. Isn't it in the wrong forum then?

    Your forum name is most appropriate then, Futilist, for attempting inductive, deductive and logical discussion with you is indeed 'futile'.
     

  80. #79  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    So your arguments have just made me more doubtful that an apocalypse is going to happen soon.
    That is how people responded in some of the first experiments ever done on cognitive dissonance. If you start out strongly disagreeing upon a controversial subject, your position tends to become more entrenched in direct proportion to the quality of the case made in opposition to it.

    Also, consistent with the cognitive dissonance diagnosis, is the anger evident in your post. With cognitive dissonance, the sufferer experiences an almost physical pain, as their world view comes under threat. They identify the person opposing their view as attacking them personally. They lash out. This explains the origin of the common aphorism: "Kill the messanger". Think about it.

    I never wanted to be the bearer of bad news. It just turned out that way.


    ---Futilitist
    Last edited by Futilitist; December 6th, 2012 at 11:17 PM. Reason: spelling
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Sometimes it is good to go back to the OP.

    Futilitist said :

    "This thread is for people to talk about the psychological aspects of the upcoming collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization."

    I am not actually sure what electromagnetic civilisation is.
    Maybe you should actually read some of my posts. It is Richard Duncan's phrase from Olduvai theory. For those who are interested, please check out the "Apocalypse soon?" thread for more details. Start with post #11. Your ignorance of my position belies your claim to be well informed. You should at least be aware of the terminology used by a well established field in opposition to your views.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    However, I guess we can treat it as synonymous with modern civilisation. The point though, is that Futilitist did not begin the thread as an open question. He assumed from the beginning that there was no doubt about his prediction of the future. That is not an auspicious start. In fact, it makes the OP meaningless. No prediction of the future is ever without doubt.
    OK. What's your point?

    ---Futilitist
     

  82. #81  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Sometimes it is good to go back to the OP.

    Futilitist said :

    "This thread is for people to talk about the psychological aspects of the upcoming collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization."

    I am not actually sure what electromagnetic civilisation is.
    Maybe you should actually read some of my posts. It is Richard Duncan's phrase from Olduvai theory. For those who are interested, please check out the "Apocalypse soon?" thread for more details. Start with post #11. Your ignorance of my position belies your claim to be well informed. You should at least be aware of the terminology used by a well established field in opposition to your views.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    However, I guess we can treat it as synonymous with modern civilisation. The point though, is that Futilitist did not begin the thread as an open question. He assumed from the beginning that there was no doubt about his prediction of the future. That is not an auspicious start. In fact, it makes the OP meaningless. No prediction of the future is ever without doubt.


    OK. What's your point?

    ---Futilitist
    If you have to ask, you won't comprehend the answer.



    I went to special effort to coordinate the font color with the background shade in the image in case you respond to color cues.
    Boing3000 and Futilitist like this.
     

  83. #82  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Futilitist

    I am glad you mentioned a time frame. In the year 2023, as you drive to the local grocery shop for your luxuries, you can reflect on how wrong you were.
    Wait a second, didn't you just say this...

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    No prediction of the future is ever without doubt.
    ...in your very last post?

    Whatever.


    ---Futilitist
     

  84. #83  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Fair point, Futilitist. We cannot with certainty predict the future. You might die of cancer and not be around in 2023. I hope that is not the case, and you will be able to ponder the situation at that time.

    After all, you might have a robot driven car by that time, and will be doing any driving at all. The imponderables are legion.
     

  85. #84  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I have always been fascinated by the blindness many people have to their own faults. It is especially entertaining, or distressing, depending on your point of view, when the blindness comes from one allegedly informed about the relevant psychology. One is left with the impression that religion has some value, as it gave us this perceptive advice from Luke. Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν.
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    But John, that assumes that Futilitist and/or Boing are physicians and have some healing ability.
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    I do not chew my cabbage twice and my meaning should be quite clear. I work in circumstances that require precise meaning. Where I use any word that may be interpreted broadly, there is a purpose for that.
    Good. I like precision in language, also. What circumstances do you work in? For what purpose are you willing to use words that may be interpreted broadly? Obfuscation? Creating confusion?

    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    That there is soon to be economic restructuring, I do not doubt. Times are poised to become more challenging for many by the indicators that I observe. That some will survive as long as the planet remains habitable and we don't manage to kill ourselves off, I would place a small wager on.
    That there is soon to be economic restructuring, I do not doubt.
    Great. How soon? How severe? What is the cause? Why don't you doubt it?

    Times are poised to become more challenging for many by the indicators that I observe.
    How much more challenging? Who do you mean by "many"? The 99%ers? Which specific indicators do you think are most important to keep an eye on?

    That some will survive as long as the planet remains habitable and we don't manage to kill ourselves off, I would place a small wager on.
    I would paraphrase that as, "some will survive as long as conditions remain survivable". That seems like a pretty sure bet for you, though I have no idea how we could settle it anyway, should I happen to win. What do you consider a small wager? Who will survive? How will they do it? What do you mean by habitable? How could we possibly manage to kill ourselves? By destroying the environment, perhaps? Oh, wait, I forgot, we don't have the power to do that.

    Your comments don't make sense to me. It is like you are attempting to slide up to my position, creating the impression that you are also, of course, quite naturally concerned about the obviously real threats facing humanity that I keep bringing up. We're all human, after all, right? But you've looked into this more deeply than I have, and there is really nothing to be too concerned about. Be somewhat vaguely concerned, perhaps, about a wide variety of unrelated things, but don't worry, your eye is on the right indicators. Nothing to see here. Move along.

    Your position is very strange to me. It does not sound like a human position. Here, let me help you a bit as to form on this thread. I'll make myself the example for you. I may be expressing PARANOIA here, but are you for real? Do you work for the CIA? Exxon? Are you with a think tank? Do you work for Ruppert Murdock? The Koch Brothers? It makes me curious to understand more. Please explain more about why you feel the way you do. This is fascinating.

    Really, feel free to push the Futilitist is paranoid angle. Make it your own. Your welcome.

    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Your forum name is most appropriate then, Futilist, for attempting inductive, deductive and logical discussion with you is indeed 'futile'.
    Bullsh!t. My arguments are highly logical. Yours are not. And since you bring up the word futile, staring deeply into the heart of darkness is what this is all about. Apocalypse is not easy. And one last note on precision. The name is Futilitist. I chose the name Futilitist quite intentionally, and you are, like, the 19th person to try to make that lame joke. And perhaps you should chew your cabbage a little better, it aids in digestion.

    ---Futilitist
     

  88. #87  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    But John, that assumes that Futilitist and/or Boing are physicians and have some healing ability.
    True. Do you think I should doubt Futilitists claim to have done pre-med (or similar)? You can't be questioning his ability to recognise cognitive dissonance, or lecture on denial mechanisms can you? I'm shocked. Perhaps I need professional help.
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Sometimes it is good to go back to the OP.

    Futilitist said :

    "This thread is for people to talk about the psychological aspects of the upcoming collapse of modern electromagnetic civilization."

    I am not actually sure what electromagnetic civilisation is.
    Maybe you should actually read some of my posts. It is Richard Duncan's phrase from Olduvai theory. For those who are interested, please check out the "Apocalypse soon?" thread for more details. Start with post #11. Your ignorance of my position belies your claim to be well informed. You should at least be aware of the terminology used by a well established field in opposition to your views.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    However, I guess we can treat it as synonymous with modern civilisation. The point though, is that Futilitist did not begin the thread as an open question. He assumed from the beginning that there was no doubt about his prediction of the future. That is not an auspicious start. In fact, it makes the OP meaningless. No prediction of the future is ever without doubt.


    OK. What's your point?

    ---Futilitist
    If you have to ask, you won't comprehend the answer.



    I went to special effort to coordinate the font color with the background shade in the image in case you respond to color cues.
    Good answer! Nice graphic design as well, by the way. And I do mean that sincerely. Besides being a drummer, I'm also a semi-well known graphic artist and animator. Bravo. At last a worthy opponent.

    Also, please note that I did not see this before posting my last comment to you. If I had, I would have been in a better mood. Thank you for agreeing to play.

    ---futilitist
     

  90. #89  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    At last a worthy opponent.

    Also, please note that I did not see this before posting my last comment to you. If I had, I would have been in a better mood. Thank you for agreeing to play.
    I realise that 'opponent' and 'play' are just words.

    However, this is a science forum. It's neither a playground nor a battlefield. If you like to think of it as a university lounge with no chairs and no coffee urn, that would be a better mindset.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  91. #90  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    However, this is a science forum. It's neither a playground nor a battlefield. If you like to think of it as a university lounge with no chairs and no coffee urn, that would be a better mindset.
    That may be a poor analogy. Universities are massive battlegrounds, especially the lounges. There is the quote, misattributed to Kissinger: "The reason that university politics is so vicious is that the stakes are so small."
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Answer to john Galt, Part I:

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I have always been fascinated by the blindness many people have to their own faults. It is especially entertaining, or distressing, depending on your point of view, when the blindness comes from one allegedly informed about the relevant psychology. One is left with the impression that religion has some value, as it gave us this perceptive advice from Luke. Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν.
    Wow! This is soooo cool! Especially, but not exclusively, that first line. I do so love a good self-petard hoisting.

    Do you remember mimetic theory from my evolution of religion thread? Of course you don't. You did not understand it then, and I'll just bet you do not understand it now.

    Here is why I'm pretty sure I am right about that bold assertion:

    John Galt:
    Girard's hypothesis sounds like Frazer's Golden Bough without any of the evidence.

    Futilitist:
    I am not as familiar with Frazer. But I wouldn't dismiss Rene Girard so off handedly. He is a pretty influential thinker.

    John Galt:
    The notion of mimetics, in the sense used by Girard, is disproved by abundant scientific evidence. With that foundation gone your entire structure surely collapses.

    Futilitist:
    The notion of mimetics was invented by Girard. To what "abundant scientific evidence" do you refer? The latest neuroscience seems to support my theory. Mirror neurons, for example, help confirm mimetics.

    John Galt:
    Anyone whose work is even partially referrent to Freud needs their head examined.

    Futilitist:
    I realize that much of Freudian theory is discredited. I'm sure Girard does, too. That quote is the first time I've ever seen Girard refer to Freud. Girard's ideas are not based on Freud. I also plan to make reference to the bible, and that is scientifically discredited, as well.

    But here is my problem: when I say novelist in this context I wish to convey a smidgeon of contempt. Don't get me wrong, I think novelists are an excellent source of entertainment and the literary ones can shine light into unexpected corners of the human condition. But they do this throught the medium of art. Again, I have nothing against art - I consider a sense of the artistic to be a cornerstone of what it means to be human. But at the same time it is not science. Thus far what I have read of Girard - and it is little more than the wikipedia article - leaves me unimpressed that he arrived at anything other than a metaphorical interpretation of reality.


    As a literary critic (not a novelist), Rene Girard uncovered the clues about mimetic desire and the scapegoat mechanism in novels. He went on later to develop these ideas from the perspective of anthropology. Social psychologists, social theorists, evolutionary biologists, neuroscientists, and religious thinkers have all been increasingly influenced by Girards theories.

    Girard is also a Catholic appologist, and influential religious scholar. I don't think that disqualifies him from having a breakthrough insight on human nature. You are making a kind of argument from authority (hard sciences) to say that anything that Rene Girard comes up with can not be taken seriously. You are also attempting to avoid doing the neccessary reading to understand what I am talking about. If you look more deeply, I promise you will find a lot of very interesting ideas that may change the way you think about everything human. That is what I found.


    John Galt:
    You say he was influential, but did he influence the kind of people who can produce meaningful, validated, scientific theories? That is what I currently not convinced of. I shall see how your exposition unfolds.

    I anticipated you might bring up mirror neurons. These seem to me to run counter to your thesis.


    Futilitist:
    I found a fantastic paper that explains how developments in mirror neuron research help to confirm mimetic theory. I really do recommend reading the whole thing. It explains this much better than I can.

    Here is the link
    https://www.msu.edu/course/eng/483/johnsen/garrells.pdf

    John Galt:
    Your argument, as I understand it, is that we wish to mimic others.

    Futilitist:
    I think you are misunderstanding mimetic theory. Mimetic Desire is not a "wish to mimic others". It is much more basic and profound. Mimetic Desire means that we immitate the desires of others.

    John Galt:
    There is a strong implication I read in your writing that this mimicry involves 'stealing' from others.

    Futilitist:
    I have no idea what you are refering to here. Mimicry in no way involves 'stealing' from others. I suppose one could use mimicry as a way to fool someone and thus steal from them, but this is not relevant. We are not talking about mimicry, we are talking about mimetics. Mimetics is not some casual trick of immitation. It is fundamental to our biology. It is the basis of all human social interaction.

    John Galt:
    his is certainly an aspect of the concept in literature - and that theme runs through from Plato to Girard. Mirror neurons, on the other hand, demonstrate that through empathy we can give support to others because we understand their condition.

    Futilitist:
    Mirror neurons do a whole lot more than that.

    From the Garrells paper:
    "Within the last several decades, empirical investigations on human imitation have producedd a dramatic surge of interest and research, the results of which provide unprecedented support for and clarification of the foundational role of psychological mimesis. Convergent evidence across the modern disciplines of developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience demonstrates that imitation based on mirrored neural activity and reciprocal interpersonal behavior is what guides and scaffolds human development from the beginning of life, significantly effecting the emergence and functioning of mental representation, communication and language, empathy, self-other differentiation, and a theory of mind. Imitation not only functions powerfully in the mother-infant dyad to bring about experience-dependent neurocognitive development, but it is thought to thrive in adulthood as one of the most organizing characteristics of human social relations. Furthermore, researchers from neuroscience and evolutionary psychology argue for the essential role of mimetic reciprocity in contributing to a wide-scale cerebral reorganization of the brain, allowing for the evolution of more complex social, cultural, and representational abilities from earlier primates to humans."



    To be continued...
     

  93. #92  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Answer to John Galt, Part II

    John Galt
    :
    Ok, we'll forget about Freud (always, I think, a good plan).

    Futilitist:
    I know we've agreed to dispense with Freud, but I found this and I thought it might be helpful:

    Eugene Webb, who collaborated with Rene Girard and Jean-Michel Oughourlian on mimetic theory had this to say on Freud in relation to Girard.

    "It has often been remarked that Freudianism has an ambiguous status as a science because it does not connect signifcantly with the results of any other branch of scientific inquiry. Daniel N. Robinson stated the problem clearly in his Systems of Modern Psychology:

    ""There is no psychoanalytic theory: there are formulations of personality based upon psychoanalytic hypothesis. The theory continues to evolve. But it does not evolve in the way that, for example, evolutionary theory did. In the latter case, advances in genetics and molecular biology made it possible to fill gaps unavoidably present in Darwin's original formulations. The accomplishments of science made it possible to replace Lamarckian with Mendelian modes of hereditary transmission...One test of the scientific status of a theory...is the extent to which it is accessible to enriching and modifying effects of discoveries in science at large. Evolutionary theory passes this test; Freudian theory fails it.""

    It is too soon to tell exactly how successfully interdividual psychology will pass the same test, but it seems a good sign, at least, that experimentalists working in complete independence of its concepts have been turning up exactly the sort of findings that the hypothesis of universal subjective mimemisis would be expected to predict. Such results certainly suggest that Girard, Oughourlian, and their colleagues are on solid ground in claiming that mimemisis is fundamental to human psychology both within the individual and in social relations, and that it contributes to all psychological processes on every level of development."

    1. Mimetic desire drives all animal bahavior.
    I'll start with number one. I'll start just by saying
    Maslow and Hertzberg. They provide, for humans and to some extent for animals, a better description of motivation than the notion that mimicry underpins behavioural drives. Maslow and Hertzberg, are I think, still well regarded in the social sciences, though I stand ready to be corrected on that.

    I don't know how Maslow and Hertzberg are regarded these days. Hertzberg was more empirical and makes more sense to me. Maslow's theory seems arbitrary and not well supported, rather like Freudian theory. I think both ideas are quite trivial compared to mimetic theory. Both ideas may need to be updated, in any case, to allow for the latest neuroscience. If these ideas are even valid, they will fit within the much larger and more important foundational science that grows out of mimetics.

    Here are my three favorite examples of how mimetic desire drives all animal behavior.

    1. The first example is from human behavior. Picture a toddler sitting in a room full of shiny toys. He is playing with one. Introduce a second toddler into the room. Which toy do you think the second child wants to play with?

    2. This example is cross-species. A dog picks up a ball. He brings it close to you. When you reach for the ball, the dog pulls it away, his tail wagging. He wants you to want the ball as much as he does. He assumes you will imitate his desire. Once you do, a drama triange is formed. You and the dog are now mimetic rivals in a game where the ball is the object of desire.

    3. This is the simple animal model example. A stupid, simple critter is eating something. Another stupid, simple critter notices. He observes the other animal eating something and not dying. He begins eating the same thing. This example, and #2 above show that mimetic desire is a driving behavioral force in the evolution of all animals, not just humans.

    I also noticed that absolutely no one (except for Write4U) seemed to have the slightest idea what mimetic theory was.


    John Galt:
    I am familiar enough with it to suspect you are taking a peculiar and specific interpretation of it, then seeking to generalise from that interpretation. Resolution of this point will not be encouraged by you making indirect remarks about the understanding of other members.

    In regard to an appreciation of mirror neurons it appears that your assessment of other's understanding of it is based on whether or not they agree with you.

    Is mimetic theory important? At this point I do not consider it to be so, since at this point I believe it is flawed - at least in terms of what you are trying to do with it.

    Do we learn through imitation? Certainly. Is this an important part of our learning process? Certainly. Is it the only means by which we learn? Certainly not. Trial and error experimentation plays a role that is at least as important.

    Can we conflate the habit of imitation with the desire to have what is possessed by another? Of course we can, but only if we wish to be mistaken. That is the root of why I currently dismiss your idea.


    Futilitist:
    In the first line you say that you are familiar enough with mimetic theory to suspect I am taking a peculiar and specific interpretation of it and seeking to generalize from that interpretation. You don't volunteer what that peculiar and specific interpretation is. You just suspect. OK.

    You then end by saying that mimetic desire, the basis of mimetic theory, is just a wrong idea. Do you see the problem here?

    It is you who have a very peculiar and specific interpretation of mimetic theory. It sounds more like anti-mimetic theory! My interpretation is essentially straight from the theory.

    Based on this post, I would say that you are not familiar enough with mimetic theory to suspect anything! And I think that is a fair and accurate statement to make based on the evidence here. But perhaps your understanding is deeper than mine and I just don't get it. Maybe you need to clear this up.

    To be continued, again...
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    348
    Answer to John Galt, part III

    John Galt
    :
    I shall return to the issue of mimetics, which I think you have a singularily narrow view of, in another post.

    Futilitist:
    Please post it here. Thanks.

    ...The concept of mimesis goes back to Plato...


    John Galt:
    Well, this shows you are capable of learning. I am glad I was able to educate you as to something of the history of mimetics. I do, however, take exception to remarks such as that quoted at the opening of this thread, where you suggest I know little of mimetics.

    I have a considerable understanding of the role of imitation of in the natural world. I have reason to believe this understanding is superior to yours. Why do I think that? Because you have chosen to accept a narrow and distorted view of both the role and importance of imitation. You have borrowed this misunderstanding from Girard who, as I have noted, I was unaware of until you spoke of him.

    To persuade me to you view you will have to produce evidence supporting such clear assertions that individuals act as “a
    role model who demonstrates an object of desire and yet, in possessing that object, becomes a rival who obstructs fulfillment of the desire.” Your assertion is that this is true of all desires. That we desire only what we see others have and that we view their possession of this ‘thing’ as not to our liking. That is what I am objecting to in your 'theory'.

    I think I can already here the sound of furious back-pedalling.



    I think I hear echos of the sound of furious back pedaling. Hey, that is Déjà vu all over again!

    Bluff and Bluster. Weren't those the guys who used to own this place? No, wait, that was Bunsen and Beaker!

    Anyway, I'll let you try and figure out why your behavior is so obviously mimetic. Hint: The answer will make you mad. You won't believe it, anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I have always been fascinated by the blindness many people have to their own faults. It is especially entertaining, or distressing, depending on your point of view, when the blindness comes from one allegedly informed about the relevant psychology. One is left with the impression that religion has some value, as it gave us this perceptive advice from Luke. Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν.
    Me too.

    You are quite evidently trying to "impress" people, and you are subconsciously aware of it, so you leave the freudian slip, "impression", in the last sentence. Interesting.

    John, we have talked in the past about how important clear writing is in getting the idea across successfully. Your writing is like a widow into your mind. Not just what you think, but how you think is also apparent to a reader. Here are some notes as to form. I think your post is a little too inside jokey, jumping abruptly from "psychology" at the end of sentence #2, to "religion" in the next sentence. One might get the impression that you had somehow confused the two threads in your mind. It is also a little narcissistic and slightly grandiose. I thought no one cared about that thread. And speaking of grandiose, what is with the Greek? You could have at least embedded a link. You should write for the general audience, not for yourself and your own self-aggrandisement. Try to see it from their perspective. That's empathy. Feel free to review our exchanges. How do you rate yourself, so far.

    Allegations of blindness directed at me are clear projections, but that concept has been covered elsewhere on the thread. No need for you to reintroduce it now. Thanks, though

    Wait a second, forget what I said at the top. The last bit is even more revealing. What is up with giving us perceptive(?) scientific advice from a fictitious religious character!? And quoting the bible in the original Greek does not make it any smarter.

    Are you a scientist in addition to being a some kind of religious zealot?

    Friendly, affirming, validating statement: I'm starting to get where you are coming from, man.


    ---Futilitist
    Boing3000 likes this.
     

  95. #94  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Mark 4: Verse 5.
     

  96. #95  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Futilitist View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    I have always been fascinated by the blindness many people have to their own faults. It is especially entertaining, or distressing, depending on your point of view, when the blindness comes from one allegedly informed about the relevant psychology. One is left with the impression that religion has some value, as it gave us this perceptive advice from Luke. Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν.
    Me too.

    You are quite evidently trying to "impress" people, and you are subconsciously aware of it, so you leave the freudian slip, "impression", in the last sentence. Interesting.

    John, we have talked in the past about how important clear writing is in getting the idea across successfully. Your writing is like a widow into your mind. Not just what you think, but how you think is also apparent to a reader. Here are some notes as to form. I think your post is a little too inside jokey, jumping abruptly from "psychology" at the end of sentence #2, to "religion" in the next sentence. One might get the impression that you had somehow confused the two threads in your mind. It is also a little narcissistic and slightly grandiose. I thought no one cared about that thread. And speaking of grandiose, what is with the Greek? You could have at least embedded a link.

    Allegations of blindness directed at me are clear projections, but that concept has been covered elsewhere on the thread. No need for you to reintroduce it now. Thanks, though

    Wait a second, forget what I said at the top. The last bit is even more revealing. What is up with giving us perceptive(?) scientific advice from a fictitious religious character!? And quoting the bible in the original Greek does not make it any smarter.

    Are you a scientist in addition to being a some kind of religious zealot?

    Friendly, affirming, validating statement: I'm starting to get where you are coming from, man.


    ---Futilitist
    You should write for the general audience, not for yourself and your own self-aggrandisement. Try to see it from their perspective. That's empathy. Feel free to review our exchanges. How do you rate yourself, so far.



    By your excessive use of visual cues I would be somewhat inclined to credit you with the majority of the descriptors you levy upon another.


     

  97. #96  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    By your excessive use of visual cues I would be somewhat inclined to credit you with the majority of the descriptors you levy upon another.
    I admit I was uspet by his description. I mean, a little narcissistic and slightly grandiose. Only a little narcissistic? And slightly grandiose! When one invests extensively and intensively in concatenating style, structure, content and ambience, to reflect and engage the intellectual, the spiritual, the materialistic and the artistic, via a plethora of vocabulary, concepts, ideology and thoughts of sardines, it is deeply disappointing to be characterised as only slightly grandiose. Why, if I valued his opinion I'd be offended.
    adelady likes this.
     

  98. #97  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,064
    Originally posted by John Galt:

    ...and thoughts of sardines....
    Something 'fishy' here...unless this was merely a reading comprehension test!

    Later all. It's -30C outdoors and I have a vehicle to flash up and four hungry equines to attend before I hit the midnight trail.
     

  99. #98  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    That may be a poor analogy. Universities are massive battlegrounds, especially the lounges. There is the quote, misattributed to Kissinger: "The reason that university politics is so vicious is that the stakes are so small."
    I think that's more within the faculties themselves. Traditional tearoom warfare regardless of workplace. The general staff dining / lounge rooms here are pretty relaxing anyway.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
     

  100. #99  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by scheherazade View Post
    By your excessive use of visual cues I would be somewhat inclined to credit you with the majority of the descriptors you levy upon another.
    I am quite dyslexic, and visual cues helps me a lot.
    I am rational and crystal clear development on a subject full of potential trap helps me a lot.
    I like humor, especially derision, and seeing so much in a thread make my day.
    Now I have plenty of things to read on mimetic, I feel nourished.

    Thank you Futilitist, you may be the more usefull fulile person on this thread (I think a special endorsement is needed at this point, seems to be the rule of the mob(d) here)

    I also see science and rationality re-enter the place, chasing out emotion and beliefs.
    I agree with Adelady, it is a much better mindset.
     

  101. #100  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,318
    Closed.

    Futurist your arrogance and mental masturbation isn't fooling anyone. This isn't your blog.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

Similar Threads

  1. Apocalypse soon?
    By Futilitist in forum Physics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 26th, 2012, 11:43 PM
  2. Replies: 57
    Last Post: August 21st, 2012, 12:05 PM
  3. Dutch goverment warns for zombie apocalypse
    By redhaven in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2012, 10:08 PM
  4. Psychology?
    By Chris11 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 20th, 2010, 08:19 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •